by Steve | Jul 5, 2024 | July-August 2024
Editorial: Missing questions In Charlotte
By Rob Renfroe
July/August 2024
During the recent General Conference of The United Methodist Church, I was interviewed by the Associated Press, The New York Times, and other news outlets. The most intriguing question a reporter asked was, “What has surprised you at this General Conference?”
Some church commentators (UM and otherwise) have expressed surprise, even shock, that The General Conference went as far as it did. Redefining marriage to include “two persons,” no longer restricting marriage to the union of one man and one woman. Allowing for persons who are engaged in gay or lesbian relationships to be ordained as pastors and serve in United Methodist churches. Removing the requirement that pastors who are single also be celibate and eliminating adultery as a chargeable offense for clergy. Changing the church’s stance on abortion so that it no longer states that United Methodists “are bound to respect the life and the well-being of the unborn child.” Instead, there is the assertion that the UM Church upholds a person’s right to an abortion.
None of that surprised me. Neither did the Conference’s refusal to provide Africa the same rights we in the U.S. were given to discern God’s will for our churches and disaffiliate if so led. Nor did the fact that many delegates as they introduced themselves to the conference, also included their sexual identities (using terms such as “straight,” “gay,” “lesbian,” “non-binary,” and “queer”).
Those of us who have followed The United Methodist Church for decades and have been in countless meetings with centrist and progressive leaders could have predicted all of that. Most of the traditional delegates have left the UM Church for the Global Methodist Church or another orthodox, biblical denomination. Twenty-five percent of the African delegates were absent, most because the Commission on General Conference did not provide them with the documentation they required in time for them to receive their visas. So, we knew the changes the liberals wanted to make in Charlotte before the Conference began and we knew they had the votes to do it.
So, what surprised me? The utter dearth of self-awareness and introspection of the Conference’s speakers and leaders. The tone was set by the opening episcopal address when a bishop spent a good fifth of his talk to tell those present who could not embrace where the UM Church was headed that maybe they did not need to be in the room, that maybe they should just leave now. This from one of the leaders of the “Big Tent” United Methodist Church that prides itself on having open hearts, open minds and open doors. This from a church that was unwilling to make a way out for churches in Africa that did not want to be in the room and that wanted to leave – and still do.
This same speaker, after firing a salvo at those he accused of spreading disinformation and creating division, then said in his next breath that we should avoid “finger-pointing.” And all done with such an air of self-righteous indignation that one was uncertain whether to laugh or or to worry that he had become untethered from reality. I understand being angry with those who have challenged your views in the past. But for one who is looked up to by many as a leader and a model to be so lacking in self-awareness – honestly, it was more than surprising. It was shocking.
The message trumpeted in the opening address continued to be the drumbeat of the Conference. The UM Church had been through a hard time because of a cabal of disgruntled, dishonest, divisive dissenters. But now that those troublers of Israel had left, everything was going to be okay. The new UM Church is united and poised for great things. One speaker even stated that she was more hopeful than ever for the United Methodist Church. Twenty-five percent of its churches are gone, many of its largest congregations are out, a good number of its most entrepreneurial pastors have left, and the Conference cut the denomination’s budget by over forty percent. But the word was – all is good, our best days are yet to come – and the U.S. delegates applauded the message they wanted to hear.
But there were no questions from any of the speakers that even a middle-manager in a mediocre company would have asked. “How did we lose twenty-five percent of our base?” “What did we do that alienated so many people who identified with us and gave their lives to this institution for decades?” “What lessons do we need to learn?”
There was no one who addressed the Conference with the reality that The United Methodist Church has lost membership every year since it was founded in 1968. Fifty-six years of decline and no one asked, “Is it possible that maybe we’re doing something wrong? We’re starting something new here at this General Conference – at least we have the opportunity to do so. Maybe before we go too far, shouldn’t we try to determine why we have lost members even in places, especially in places, where our pastors and our congregations are the most progressive?”
Any company in the United States that had experienced fifty-six years of constant decline would long before have removed its board of directors and demanded a new kind of leadership. Instead, the UM Church has doubled-down in recent years, electing bishops that are more and more liberal – and not surprisingly the rate of membership decline for the denomination has only increased.
Admitting there’s a problem requires introspection and self-awareness. Being a leader means asking oneself, “How have I contributed to the problem and what can I do better?” Getting better as a church doesn’t happen when its representatives and delegates applaud when its bishops point the finger at others and tell them everything’s going to be all right. No one and no institution ever grows or gets right until there is a willingness to ask difficult questions and be honest about the problems. There was none of that in Charlotte.
Image: Visitors to the United Methodist General Conference in Charlotte, N.C., watch the proceedings on overhead video monitors. Photo by Mike DuBose, UM News.
by Steve | Jun 14, 2024 | In the News, Perspective / News
A Promise Kept and a Promise Spurned
By Thomas Lambrecht
As United Methodists continue to become aware of the actions taken by the 2024 General Conference, responses range from celebration to confusion to disagreement to disenchantment. Many are asking the question: What does this mean for me and my church?
For congregations, there will probably be little short-term change. United Methodist life will go on pretty much as it has in the past. However, clergy will be able to officiate for same-sex weddings and churches will be able to host such weddings. How that could affect your congregation will be unique to your situation.
Longer-term, there will be an evolution of dramatic change. United Methodism has redefined marriage to include same-sex unions. The expectation that sex is reserved for marriage has been removed. The definition of “immorality” has been deleted, weakening its enforcement. It is likely that any sexual relationship between consenting adult clergy (to say nothing about laity) will be permitted or at least ignored.
Apportionment money will be spent to promote the acceptance of homosexuality. This includes the LGBTQ+ history institute announced at the General Conference by the Commission on Archives and History. LGBTQ persons must be nominated and elected to serve on all the general church boards and agencies. “Sexual orientation” has been defined as an immutable class similar to race and (male/female) gender. Local churches are to be trained to accept LGBTQ persons as their pastor, and appointments are to be made regardless of sexual orientation. While a gay pastor may not initially be forced upon a congregation, all congregations will be expected to become open to receiving a gay pastor, just as they are now expected to be open to receiving a woman pastor or a pastor of a different race or ethnicity.
Congregations that find themselves uncomfortable with the direction set for the denomination by the 2024 General Conference have few options. Their ability to disaffiliate and retain their property depends upon the grace of their particular annual conference. This week demonstrated two opposite approaches to the question of disaffiliation.
South Carolina Faithfulness
The South Carolina Annual Conference was one of the last conferences to permit congregational disaffiliation. Bishop Jonathan Holston ruled that Par. 2553 could not be used in South Carolina because the annual conference was enforcing the Book of Discipline’s requirements around marriage, sexuality, and LGBTQ persons. Finally last year, the conference decided that it would use Par. 2549 to allow churches to disaffiliate and retain their property through closure. The church would be closed and the property resold to the congregation in exchange for an established fee similar to what was required under Par. 2553 plus ten percent of the property value. Under these provisions, 113 churches disaffiliated in 2023.
Although disaffiliation under Par. 2553 was to end on December 31, 2023, South Carolina promised to allow further disaffiliations under Par. 2549 following the 2024 General Conference.
This week the South Carolina Conference kept its promise and voted to allow 112 more churches to disaffiliate under the same terms. As reported by an annual conference press release, the conference acknowledged that these churches “find themselves unable to serve the purpose for which they were organized, because issues related to human sexuality have prevented them, in that they cannot accept the actions taken in The United Methodist Church.”
The disaffiliating churches represented over 13 percent of the conference’s congregations and about 12 percent of the conference’s membership. They ranged in size from 11 members to 2,110 members. Altogether, about 24 percent of the conference’s pre-Covid congregations have disaffiliated.
The conference further voted to recommend to its trustees that one more round of disaffiliations be allowed in 2024, to be approved by the 2025 annual conference. The trustees will make the final determination on that recommendation. If carried out, it would represent a good faith effort to provide churches that cannot continue within United Methodism a fair way to disaffiliate (albeit at a somewhat elevated cost).
The Northeastern Jurisdiction
In a dramatically contrary move, the College of Bishops of the Northeastern Jurisdiction released a letter outlining their position on disaffiliation. Their letter announced that “The NEJ College of Bishops will uphold the decision made by the delegates at the postponed 2020 General Conference to discontinue any disaffiliation process and NOT support any more disaffiliations.”
These bishops adopted the interpretation that the 2024 General Conference eliminated all disaffiliation pathways and effectively forbid further disaffiliations from taking place. “To be clear, the General Conference indicated through the legislation it approved that disaffiliation is no longer a path for leaving the denomination. There was no extension of disaffiliation, and the disaffiliation paragraph was removed from The Book of Discipline.”
(The tenor of the debate at the General Conference was that annual conferences were able to set their own terms for releasing congregations without those terms being set by the General Conference. While some delegates thought all disaffiliations should end, other delegates preferred to allow annual conferences to make that determination. The General Conference did not forbid disaffiliation. It just failed to provide a uniform disaffiliation pathway for the whole church.)
The bishops’ statement leaves the door open a crack for using Par. 2549, the closure paragraph. “People have inquired about the use of other disciplinary paragraphs to allow disaffiliations. … Two paragraphs were considered in the past: paragraph 2548 was ruled by the Judicial Council of The United Methodist Church not to be used for disaffiliations, and paragraph 2549 is for a church closure and how to handle the property. Now that disaffiliations have concluded, the College of Bishops will ensure that annual conferences receive the best value for any sold property.”
It appears bishops might be willing to sell a church’s property back to the congregation for “the best value” they can get for it, which might be higher than the costs imposed by Par. 2553. A recent communication from Bishop John Schol of Eastern Pennsylvania and Greater New Jersey indicated a congregation could buy its property for its appraised value. Some congregations may be able to afford such a cost, but many may not.
Back to the Individual
This brings the question back to the impact of the 2024 General Conference’s actions on each individual United Methodist. Some will welcome and celebrate those actions. Others may not have an opinion on the matter and be willing to tolerate whatever comes. Others may disagree with those actions but are willing to remain in the denomination despite those disagreements. Some of this last group may conceive their calling as continuing a traditionalist witness within the UM Church, despite its overwhelming bent toward a more progressive understanding of the faith.
For others, however, remaining United Methodist poses a dilemma of conscience in being part of a church that affirms and promotes types of relationship that the Bible names as sinful. For these individuals, there are several options:
- If a supermajority of their congregation’s members agree that this dilemma of conscience necessitates disaffiliation, the members could pursue the possibility through the established channels of their annual conference.
- Where the annual conference has closed the door on disaffiliation, the congregation cannot afford the cost of disaffiliation to retain the buildings and assets, or a significant group of members falls short of reaching the two-thirds vote required for disaffiliation, a group of departing members could form the core of a new church. This is happening in many places across the U.S., Africa, and the Philippines. The Global Methodist Church and its partner ministry the River Network have training, support, and some resources available to assist new congregations in being formed. There are advantages to taking this route, including the ability to envision and structure the church for 21st century ministry, rather than being saddled with outdated buildings, organizational structures, and ministry patterns. Starting afresh also poses challenges in terms of the time and energy involved in creating a new ministry. Where the people and resources are available, this approach can be an exciting avenue to expand Gospel ministry.
- Where congregational disaffiliation or creating a new church are not possible, individuals may need to seek out a new church for conscience’s sake that more closely identifies with their theological perspective. Wesleyan or Wesleyan-friendly denominations include the Free Methodist, Wesleyan, Nazarene, Christian and Missionary Alliance, and Assemblies of God denominations, among others. Most non-denominational churches are not Wesleyan in theology, although some are. Careful searching could yield a compatible congregation nearby that would further one’s growth in discipleship and provide opportunities to serve in ministering to the community.
These are all weighty decisions, both at the congregational and individual levels. They need to be surrounded in prayer and consultation with family and friends. Resources for congregations and individuals are available from the Wesleyan Covenant Association’s Revive! collection. A number of valuable and practical presentations have been recorded and are being prepared for posting through their website.
One hopes that more annual conferences will follow the South Carolina model of providing a good faith approach graciously allowing churches to disaffiliate who find they can no longer function under the New United Methodism. As I was writing this, word came that the Kentucky Conference voted “to encourage the bishop and Cabinet of the Kentucky Annual Conference to explore the Book of Discipline Paragraph 2549 as a potential means for facilitating a fair and just pathway for churches to exit The United Methodist Church.” One fears that many conferences will take the approach of the Northeastern College of Bishops in denying disaffiliation and holding on to churches for every last dime they can get. One wonders which approach might more closely reflect the spirit of Jesus and set a hospitable and positive tone for the new Methodism.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and vice president of Good News. The South Carolina Annual Conference is attempting to create a bridge for churches. Arthur Ravenel Jr. Bridge in South Carolina. Photo by David Martin Jr. (Pexels).
by Steve | Jun 12, 2024 | May-June 2024
A Love Story
By Bonnie McClure
Can I tell you a love story?
Lately, I’ve been thinking about different types of love. Culturally, we are trained quite extensively on familial love – the love we have for family, and romantic love – the love we have for a partner or spouse. Once we enter adulthood, those two types of love alone tend to fill up the majority of our time, schedules, and hearts.
But there is another type of love that is quite important to our social health – the love of friendship. Not only are these relationships important for us to cultivate and integrate for our well-being, they also point to a specific way that we relate to Jesus.
“I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you” (John 15:15).
Indeed, there is a unique kind of transparency within friendship. Perhaps it is because friends do not carry the same emotional and relational entanglements that come with family members and spouses. With my friends, I don’t have to deal with an annoying humming habit of a little brother while I’m trying to read in the evenings. With my friends, I don’t have to step over the same pair of shoes a spouse continuously leaves in the hallway. (Not my spouse, of course…)
With friends, time spent together tends to be more deliberate and intentional, because you (usually) don’t live together.
But while there are lots of people in the world that I don’t live with, there are only a few to which I would bare my soul. These few are the ones I would call my friends. With them, I am willing to be myself because over time, we have cultivated the type of trust and intimacy that allows me to feel safe enough to explore thoughts, feelings, dreams, desires, problems, solutions, and questions, without fear of judgement, shame, condemnation, or ridicule.
Bring to mind the friend you trust the most. The one who knows you so well. The one who you even allow to push back on things you do or say because you’ve come to know they truly want the best for you. They have no ulterior motives, no hidden agendas, no reason to manipulate you. Not only do they allow you to be fully yourself, they celebrate who you are, and also, the transparency is two way: they allow themselves to also be fully known by you.
This level of friendship is an organic exchange of vulnerability, intimacy, and trust.
Now, understanding all of the value this exchange gives you, feeling into the deep gratitude we have for someone we know is in our corner, how wonderful, then, is it that Jesus invites us into this type of love?
My friend Linda. The two of us met in college in the psychology program. She sat right in front of me in our History of Psychology class. We had not known each other that long but she did know I had recently lost my dad to suicide.
One day our class had a well-intentioned special presentation on Suicide Prevention. If you’ve never lost someone to suicide, it is difficult to know exactly how triggering this type of experience can be. It is true that I have had to build resilience as a survivor of suicide loss, because there are references and reminders everywhere.
But especially at this point in time, it was early in my loss, and a class on prevention, for me, only threatened to unleash traumatic spiraling. Can it be prevented? Why wasn’t mine? Did I do something wrong? What else could I have done? Why didn’t any of this work for my dad? And on and on I might go diving head first into the volatile storm of my grief.
Linda must have anticipated this. Without any words, discussion, or prompting, she turned and held my hand for the entire presentation. I have never been so touched by such a simple act of love.
That day, Linda was just being Linda, doing what Linda does. But in this act of friendship, she was also being Jesus, doing what Jesus does.
Jesus comes to us in our greatest hour(s) of need and offers us his hand. He offers us his peace, his stability, his comfort, his strength, he embraces us so that there is nothing we have to endure alone.
But in order to accept this invitation, we must be willing to acknowledge we need it. We must be willing to face the sadness, grief, despair, anger, resentment, wounding, pain, that is there. And because he is our friend, he is willing to go there with us.
When our bodies are sick, we seek medical treatment and care. But the condition of the soul and the heart are much more tricky to deal with, and yet they are connected to the condition of everything we do. “What you say flows from what is in your heart” (Luke 6:45).
For this we need someone who, first of all, sees the heart. “For the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart” (1 Samuel 16:7).
Jesus not only sees the heart, he will hold the heart, if we let him.
Truly, our hearts are the only thing we have to offer the King of Glory. Sometimes I imagine I am laying my heart at the foot of the cross. It is the only thing I can exchange for what he’s done for me, my friend, my savior, my liberator, my faithful shepherd of life.
“Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13). Not his slaves, not his ungrateful, sinful children, not his repeated failure of a creation – his friends.
Christ would lay down his life for his friends. Even though we don’t deserve it, his grace dignifies us by considering us friends even before we ask for friendship. In the same way Linda offered me her hand that day, Christ is the confident initiator of a no holds barred, no strings attached, pure and unmitigated love of friendship. It is up to us to grasp the gift he is offering.
I hope you will accept the friendship Christ is offering. That you would turn to him in times of trouble and celebration, that you would share with him your truest self, that you would hold his hand when you feel like spinning out of control, that you would delight in the small joys he gives us, that you would hold him in your heart and give him yours in the same way we do with close friends we trust.
For there is no greater love than this.
Bonnie McClure is an active member of her Methodist community in Bremen, Georgia. She writes regularly about Christian Healing on her Substack blog, The Pointed Arrow (bonniemcclure.substack.com). Photo: Pixabay (Pexels).
by Steve | Jun 7, 2024 | May-June 2024, Uncategorized
Killing Stone to Baptismal Font
By Steve Beard
Remarkably, after 45 seasons CBS’s “Survivor” is still a certifiable television hit. Millions of viewers tune in to watch the travails of contestants in a Robinson Crusoe-style tropical setting. Coral reefs, whitecapped waves, pristine beaches, and snuffed-out tiki torches.
For the last 12 seasons, the American audience has been savoring the sites and skullduggery from half-a-world away since the show is taped in the South Pacific nation of Fiji – 5,500 miles southwest of Los Angeles, two-thirds of the way from Hawaii to New Zealand, and immediate neighbors with Samoa, Tonga, and Vanuatu. If you spin your globe to examine this area of the world, you’ll discover that Fiji is made up of more than 332 islands, 110 of which are inhabitable.
With its stunning visuals and breathtaking landscape, it is not difficult to see why adventurer Bear Grylls also tapped the Fijian islands for his 10-episode” World’s Toughest Race., in 2019 (currently on Amazon Prime).
“Fiji is such a stunning country and a land of extremes,” Grylls told Lonely Planet. “It has so much incredible natural beauty and diversity, from the crystal blue oceans, to the jungle rivers, to the pristine wilderness and the rolling canyons. But it’s also a tough and dangerous type of terrain, with hundreds of remote miles of swamps, jungle, ravines and high mountains that are among the most intense I have ever been in, ironically.”
Grylls also noted, “We had huge welcomes from the locals wherever the race took us, and they were such a genuinely warm and friendly people.”
The Flying Fijians. The Fijians are not only hospitable, they are fiercely competitive and simultaneously anchored by their Christian faith. The national rugby team made international headlines in the fall of 2023 by defeating powerhouses such as England and Australia in stellar World Cup bouts. Rugby is the king of sports for Fiji.
With great devotion, the players pray and sing hymns before and after their bouts. While first-tier teams travel with sports psychologists, teams from Fiji (population 900,000); Tonga (100,000), and Samoa (200,000) prepare in a different way.
“We are able to bring in a reverend,” Flying Fijian coach Simon Raiwalui told the media. “[O]ur mental well-being is in connection with our religion and people.” The Rev. Joji Rinakama, a Methodist Church minister, serves as the Fijian chaplain. He is a former player and coach. (Tonga and Samoa also have chaplains.)
With its international rugby success and the nation’s name emblazoned on high-end bottled water, Fiji’s star has never shone more brightly on the world stage.
In an earlier era, however, it was a different story. Seafaring explorers such as Captain Cook in the 1770s fastidiously avoided the Fijian islands. In 1789, Captain Bligh noted: “I dare not land [on Fiji] for fear of the natives.” At that time, Fiji was known as the “Cannibal Isles.” The world – and Fiji – was notably different.
Thakombau’s reluctance. The spiritual turnabout of the picturesque island nation did not take place overnight – it took place over decades. The World Council of Churches notes that the first Christian missionaries to Fiji were three Tahitian teachers with the London Missionary Society in 1830. The Wesleyan Missionary Society from Australia began ministry among the islanders five years later. Ultimately, the work was done by Tongan, Tahitian, and British missionaries.
“Your religion is well enough for the white races; but we Fijians are better as we are,” Thakombau (or Ratu Seru Cakobau), the top-ruling chief/warrior during that era, told the missionaries.
With matter-of-fact exhibits in The Fiji Museum in the capital city of Suva, the nation’s cannibal history is neither denied nor celebrated. Instead, it is acknowledged and public apologies have been offered.
Live among the stars. With initial reluctance, Jodi Bulu became a Christian believer in neighboring Tonga in 1833. He would be a key component in the spiritual trajectory of Fiji. In his autobiography, he explains how his mind was changed when he heard there would be a “promised land of the dead,” a “home in the sky for the good.”
Bulu describes an epiphany that shifted his thinking: “It was a fine night; and looking up to the heavens where the stars were shining, this thought suddenly smote me: ‘O the beautiful land! If the words be true which were told us today, then are these lotu [Christian] people happy indeed;’ for I saw that the earth was dark and gloomy, while the heavens were clear, and bright with many stars; and my soul longed with a great longing to reach that beautiful land.”
“I will lotu,” wrote Bulu, “that I may live among the stars.”
Bulu’s cross-cultural ministry began when he heard the call for Christian teachers to go to Fiji. He testified, “my soul burned within me, and a great longing sprang up in my heart to go away to that land and declare the glad tidings of salvation to the people that knew not God.”
After becoming a believer, he relates his spiritual struggle while listening to a message on the love of Christ. Bulu recalled, “my eyes were opened. I saw the way; and I, even I also, believed and loved …. My heart was full of joy and love, and the tears streamed down my cheeks. Often had I wept before: but, not like my former weeping, were the tears I now shed. Then, I wept out of sorrow and fear, but now for very joy and gladness, and because my heart was full of love to him, who had loved me, and given himself for me.”
There are many factors that led to the transformation of Fiji, but there is no doubt that Bulu’s outreach was indispensable.
Bishop Gerald Kennedy. In a 1965 sermon at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky, Bishop Gerald Kennedy of Methodism’s California-Pacific Annual Conference spoke about his visit to Fiji. Prior to his expedition, Kennedy was unaware of the island chain’s history and macabre nickname.
Regaling his experience in the South Pacific, the bishop extolled the missionary work of the Rev. John Hunt who left England in 1838 as a newlywed to share his faith on the other side of the world (more than 15,000 nautical miles). “He wrote one of the best books you’ll ever read on entire sanctification – right among those cannibals,” Kennedy told the clergy and seminarians. “You remember that when you say, I’m going to write a book someday, but I haven’t time.”‘(Kennedy was the prolific author of more than 20 books.)
After months at sea, Hunt and his wife had been given a small dwelling in the village and “often times a horrible stench came into his cottage when they [the Fijian warriors] returned from their raids as they killed and cooked the enemy,” Kennedy said. Through it all, Hunt worked tirelessly in translating the Bible to the Fijian language and attempted to work with the chiefs.
In an almost surreal conversation with Hunt, Thakombau asked: “What will become of the bodies of those who have been eaten, and of those who have been buried? Will they rise again from the dead?”
The Rev. Hunt replied, “Your body, the bodies of all those whom you have eaten, and the bodies of all who are in the graves, will rise again at the day of judgment; and if you and they have not repented, you will all be condemned and cast into hell-fire.”
Thakombau said: “Ah, well! it is a fine thing to have a fire in cold weather.”
Hunt responded: “I shall still pray for you with a good mind, although you treat the subject so lightly.” That was a notable understatement in a truly different and difficult era. When one reads through the blood-curdling missionary reports regarding what they witnessed, it is miraculous that they didn’t all hightail it back to Australia or any of the neighboring islands.
Bishop Kennedy pointed out that Hunt was discouraged and didn’t believe he was making progress with the Fijians. Regrettably, ten years after arriving in Fiji, Hunt would die of dysentery in 1848. From his deathbed, he sent word by a messenger back to Thakombau that he was praying for him. Hunt’s final words were, “Lord, bless Fiji! Save Fiji!”
“Now, here’s a miracle,” Kennedy said. “It didn’t happen right then, but five or six years later, Thakombau was converted.”
In telling his story, Thakombau (1815-1874) attributed his conversion to Hunt’s dying prayers. “I was first favorably impressed towards the Christian religion when I saw it made dying not only easy, but triumphant. John Hunt’s whole concern was about my conversion,” he said. “His wife was soon to be a widow and his children fatherless in a land of savages. He could leave them to the care of his heavenly Father. I barred the way to the spread of Christianity, and had forbidden the people, at the peril of life, to turn away from the gods of Fiji.”
Thakombau continued: “ … He prayed for Fiji, and for me, the chief of sinners. I went to see the body after his death, and Mr. [James] Calvert told me he had left a message of love, and his last prayers were for my conversion. My salvation was the answer to those last prayers.”(Correspondingly, cannibalism was abandoned in 1854.)
Killing Stone. While he was in Fiji, Bishop Kennedy took a boat to a sanctuary on a neighboring island to see a thoroughly unique and provocative symbol of conversion.
“Up at the front of the church was a whole rough stone. It was hollowed out in the top,” Kennedy said. The Fijian Methodists told him that it was their baptismal font. “They said it was originally the killing stone where Thakombau killed his victims,” Kennedy reported. Eventually, the stone was washed, “got the blood off of it, and brought it into that church and made the baptismal font of it.”
A few years ago, the Fiji Times retold a story about the transformation of the stone during the ministry of the Rev. Norman and Mabel Deller (1921-1936). According to Rev. Aubrey Baker, “the stone remained in the village unused, but a constant reminder of the evil of the past and the change made possible by Christ. … Even a stone could be converted. A thing that had been the agent of death became the symbol of new life in Christ.”
In his message nearly 60 years ago, Kennedy reflected on the deep symbolism of the transformed killing stone.” Don’t you like that?” he asked. “I looked at that and said to myself, That’s what the Christian Church is and that’s what the Christian Church ought to be: something to remind people who they were and what they can be without Christ. At the same time, something will say to them but this is what you can be when God finds you – and you give yourself to him.”
Steve Beard is the editor of Good News. This article appeared in the May/June 2024 issue of Good News. PHOTO: Fijian village of Navala in Nausori Highlands. Photo by Anton Leddin (Creative Commons).
by Steve | Jun 7, 2024 | In the News, Perspective / News
Turmoil After General Conference
By Thomas Lambrecht
The actions of the 2024 General Conference are reverberating around the church. Right now, they are mostly reverberating around Africa. Some African bishops have yet to return home, but members are hearing reports from delegates and others, and many of the members are not happy.
Ivory Coast
Barely two weeks after the adjournment of the General Conference, the Ivory Coast Annual Conference voted unanimously to depart from the UM Church. Reports on the number of members involved range up to 1.2 million by some sources. The 2016 official number is 677,355 (unchanged from 2012).
The reasons given for the Ivory Coast action included the reversal of the Traditional Plan adopted by the 2019 General Conference and the “promotion of organization based on regionalization which enshrines the adoption of the practice of homosexuality.”
In a press statement received by Good News, Ivory Coast makes the case that “The United Methodist Church, in its new policy of Regionalization, is now based on cultural facts and not on the Word of God, so that Regionalization asks it to adapt the Book of Discipline to the cultural standards in different contexts.” After citing a number of Scripture references related to homosexuality and marriage, the statement goes on to ask, “How can we maintain that marriage between people of the same sex and all its LGBTQIA+ corollaries up to their ordination in the Church, is a matter of culture?”
“Therefore, it is rather the cultural frame of reference opposed to biblical values which poses a problem, and which forms the basis of the position of the Ivory Coast Annual Conference not to rally behind the new policy of Regionalization of The United Methodist Church.”
Having rejected regionalization, the statement turns its attention to the definition of marriage. “Why does The United Methodist Church choose its own terms to define marriage, this divine institution as old as the world, in abandoning what has always been biblically known?”
The statement cites its agreement with biblical teaching and Ivoirian law, which defines marriage as “the union of a man and a woman.”
The statement continues, “The singular definition of marriage as being ‘the union between two people of faith’ is a pernicious deviation from the Word of God, and from the teaching of the Church of Jesus Christ from its beginning until this day. And yet, the Social Principles [containing this definition] are intended to serve as an official summary of the beliefs expressed by the Church on the important questions of the world.” (Note that the Social Principles may not be adapted by conferences outside the U.S. to fit their cultural context.)
“The change in language related to sanctions in the 2016 Book of Discipline seriously violates the Wesleyan principle which rests the Methodist Church on two key pillars: doctrine, on the one hand, and discipline, on the other. Thus, doctrinally, from the point of view of biblical orthodoxy, it is no longer a question, we believe, since The United Methodist Church calls into question the Bible as the Word of God, encourages sin, and no longer teaches the confession of sins and repentance. There is also no longer any question of discipline, since the Church now opens the way to a libertine and abject life. It authorizes sin and advocates the theology of cheap grace (Cf. Romans, chapter 6).”
“As a result of the above, the Ivory Coast Annual Conference has unanimously by the delegates adopted the following resolution:
- that The United Methodist Church, resulting from the 2020 General Conference postponed to 2024, held from April 23 to May 3, 2024, in Charlotte, North Carolina of the USA, is not based on any biblical and disciplinary values;
- that The United Methodist Church is now based instead on values of diverse socio-cultural contexts, which consumed its doctrinal and disciplinary integrity in the “Regionalization Plan;”
- that The United Methodist Church actually preferred to sacrifice its honorability and integrity to promote worldly practices;
- that the new profile of The United Methodist Church, resulting from the General Conference of Charlotte, which stands out from the Holy Scriptures, is not suitable any more for the Ivory Coast Annual Conference.
That, therefore, the Ivory Coast Annual Conference of The United Methodist Church, meeting in extraordinary session on Tuesday, May 28, 2024, at the Temple EMUCI—the Jubilee of Cocody, out of conscience before God and before his Word, supreme authority in matters of faith and life, decides to leave the denomination United Methodist Church.”
It is yet to be determined whether the conference will withdraw immediately or will seek to use the Par. 572 disaffiliation process that could take a number of years. It is also uncertain whether the conference will become an independent Methodist church or will align with the Global Methodist Church or another denomination. Ivory Coast was originally part of British Methodism. It became an independent Methodist church in 1984 and then joined The United Methodist Church in 2004.
Rwanda
The Rwanda Provisional Annual Conference, reporting 6,200 members in 2016, met on May 30 to respond to the actions of the General Conference. It voted unanimously to withdraw from the denomination. It is currently constituting itself as an independent Methodist church.
Nigeria
The four annual conferences of Nigeria, reporting 464,000 members in 2016, met in special session together on June 1 to hear reports of the General Conference. During debate, the delegates adopted a resolution declaring:
- This General Conference removed restrictive language and changed the definition of marriage, which no longer aligns with our traditional Biblical beliefs.
- The current United Methodist Church has altered the original language of our Discipline to accommodate cultural values divergent from ours;
- The United Methodist Church now prioritizes the LBGQ+ community over the traditional beliefs held by many United Methodists in Nigeria;
- The New UMC has changed our doctrinal beliefs.
Accordingly, the combined conferences voted “to leave the United Methodist Church pending the determination of litigations.” The four annual conferences will meet individually later this summer to elect officers and carry out the other business of the annual conference.
The original purpose of the special session was to attempt once again a reconciliation with a breakaway group headed by the Rev. Ande Emmanuel. Emmanuel was the bishop’s secretary but was removed from that position three years ago. He still claims to be the conference secretary, although he was not elected to that position. He served as a General Conference delegate and spoke several times on the floor of the conference in Charlotte. He claims to be the true spokesperson for the Nigeria United Methodist Church, while making the false claim that Bishop John Wesley Yohanna has left the denomination for the Global Methodist Church.
Several attempts at reconciliation have been made, involving bishops from Africa and the U.S. as mediators. Legal cases were filed in Nigerian courts. Complaints were filed against Yohanna and also against Emmanuel. The complaints were resolved through a “just resolution” process. However, it was alleged that Emmanuel has not lived up to the agreed terms of the just resolution.
This recent special conference was disrupted for several hours by armed ruffians who attempted to prevent the meeting from taking place, allegedly having been hired by Emmanuel’s faction. Security was called and several were arrested, so that the meeting could continue.
As reported by Nigerian leaders, in light of Emmanuel’s alleged continued failure to live up to the terms of the just resolution, his spreading falsehoods, his refusal to withdraw legal cases, and his disruption of the meeting, the body voted that “The breakaway members are welcome back into the United Methodist Church by following all the required procedures or may continue their stay outside the bar of the conference.” Regrettably, these reconciliation attempts appear to have failed. Unfortunately, Bishop John Schol, who was scheduled to attend the conference as a mediator, was unable to be there due to problems with his visa to enter Nigeria.
Zambia
The Zambia Annual Conference, with nearly 130,000 members reported in 2016, met this week in their regular session. After hearing reports from the delegates to the General Conference, much debate ensued, but no vote on withdrawal from the UM Church was taken. At that point, two districts and their superintendents announced their withdrawal from the UM Church with all of their churches. Other individual clergy and churches also announced their withdrawal.
Liberia and Zimbabwe
Lay leaders and other laity staged demonstrations outside the respective annual conference headquarters clamoring for the bishops to hold a special session of the annual conference to consider the results of the General Conference. Sentiment is strong for withdrawal in both conferences, but it remains to be seen what decision they will ultimately make and whether their bishops will hold special annual conference sessions as they promised prior to the General Conference.
Other annual conferences in Africa continue to learn about the actions of the General Conference and formulate their responses, which will be forthcoming over the next six months.
The United States
Congregations in many conferences in the U.S. are learning that their annual conference has no plans to allow them to disaffiliate now, despite promises they could do so after the General Conference met. A few conferences are allowing disaffiliations under Par. 2549, the paragraph that allows the conference to close a church and sell its property – in this case to the departing congregation. When it is impractical for a congregation to disaffiliate, some members are voting with their feet. Some are leaving to start a new congregation. Others are leaving to find a home in a more compatible church.
Two court cases were resolved in opposite ways recently. In Alabama, 48 churches sued the Alabama-West Florida Conference because it changed its rules in the middle of 2023 to disallow further disaffiliations. The supreme court of Alabama ruled that it had no jurisdiction to decide the matter because it involved religious beliefs and practices.
However, two of the justices went out of their way to call out the unfairness of the conference’s rule change. Associate Justice Tommy Bryan wrote in his opinion, “There is something extremely unsettling about changing the rules during the course of the game. I question whether this process was fair. However, as noted, we simply do not have the jurisdiction to decide this matter.”
Associate Justice Greg Cook wrote, “I write separately to express my sympathy for the predicament faced by the churches in this case. In particular, I am concerned by the churches’ claim that the Conference unfairly engineered the disaffiliation process to prevent their departure from the UMC.”
“Although I sympathize with the fairness concerns raised by the churches, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (and our existing caselaw) leave this Court with no choice but to deny their request for relief. Instead, the only remedy for the conduct alleged by the churches in this case must come from the members of the Judicial Council, the UMC’s ecclesiastical tribunal (that is, its own judicial system), guided by their faith, consciences, and the principles of Biblical justice,” he added.
It remains to be seen whether this appeal will be heard by the conference, resulting in a change of heart. Of course, if the court cannot intervene in an intra-church dispute, maybe those local churches could just depart, and the conference could do nothing about it. (Just speculating here.)
That is what happened in the Rio Texas Conference. Forty-four churches withdrew from the conference without going through the Par. 2553 disaffiliation process. The conference sued the churches, and the court recently dismissed the suit. In Texas, the trust clause is almost unenforceable.
As United Methodists around the world continue to digest the results of the General Conference, it is definitely causing turmoil and conflict. It will be a while before the dust settles and the final outcomes are known.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and vice president of Good News. Photo: Children dance during Sunday school at Temple Emmanuel United Methodist Church in Man, Côte d’Ivoire, in 2015. Photo: Members of the choir, under the direction of Martin Edi Ori (center) welcome visitors to Macedonia United Methodist Church in Yapo-Kpa, Côte d’Ivoire, in 2018. Photo by Mike DuBose, UM News.
