by Steve | Mar 13, 2024 | March/April 2024
Holy Love and the Genius of Wesleyanism
By Ryan Nicholas Danker
For some reason, I’m enamored with the scene of the laying of the foundation stone at what was then the New Chapel on City Road, London, in 1777. John Wesley was happy with the rain that day, something anyone who has been to the British Isle knows all too well. There is a reason these islands are so green. He was happy with it, though, not because of the greenery but because it limited the size of the crowds.
Wesley liked crowds to an extent, but he liked them to be controlled. And crowds in London in the eighteenth century were not always the best behaved. It had been a number of years since the last mob attacked a Methodist preacher, including Wesley, but the memories of those events were likely seared in his memory. Early Methodist chapels had been built with rowdy mobs in mind, including ways for any preacher quickly to exit the building when necessary.
But by the late 1770s, when the chapel in question was finished, things were different. By then the trans-Atlantic Evangelical Revival, of which Wesley’s Methodism was a part, had been going on for almost forty years. The “showers of grace” as they were called kept falling and the Wesley brothers and so many other evangelicals in the Church of England had done their best to keep up with them, chasing these outbursts of the Spirit around Britain, Ireland, and even into the Americas. There were still concerns that Methodists were out to undermine the social and political order, and the rumblings of revolution on the European continent did not help assuage these suspicions, but most of these concerns were dying down.
Here on City Road, in the rain, on what was then the outskirts of a quickly expanding London, and just a few feet from his mother’s grave, Wesley preached a sermon that outlined his vision for Methodism: “On Laying the Foundation of the New Chapel.”
“What is Methodism? What does this new word mean? Is it not a new religion?” Wesley asked. “This is a very common, nay, almost an universal supposition. But nothing can be more remote from the truth. It is a mistake all over. Methodism, so called, is the old religion, the religion of the Bible, the religion of the primitive church, the religion of the Church of England.”
One of the mistakes of modern Wesleyans is to forget that Methodism began – and to an extent is always meant to be – a movement of renewal or restoration without group or later denominational limits. This is very clearly seen in Wesley’s description, as he believed that what Methodists were doing in their society meetings, their bands, their street preaching, their clinics for the poor, and their continued adherence to the Church of England, was to restore the best of the past by bringing it to the present.
At its best, Methodism, even in its more revivalistic periods, has valued the mind, the contribution of faithful scholars, and the insights learned from years of study and formation. This intellectual gift is not greater than any other, of course, but Methodism maintains its trajectory by means of thoughtful leaders who are attuned to the Spirit’s work and to the gift of wisdom. Unlike Luther, Wesley embraced reason. Knowledge and vital piety, to borrow from Charles Wesley, are not in opposition to one another.
Wesley believed, however, that Methodism was called to renew or restore the heart of the church’s witness: a transforming encounter with the crucified and risen Christ, a witness that spoke to our transformation here and to the ultimate wholeness that God has for all creation. Proclamation, encounter, and Methodism go together. And in his sermon, he outlined the ways in which, at its best, Methodism was doing just that.
Notice that Wesley wants to make the point that Methodism is not new. We are not doing a new thing. Methodism at its best does old things and does them well. Like so many in our own day that yearn for an expression of the faith with substance, Wesley wanted Methodism to be “the old religion.” But let’s be careful here. This is not the same as “give me that old time religion,” which often points to 19th century camp meetings, as wonderful as they may have been. This – the old religion – is much, much older. It is the term he uses to encapsulate the other three qualifiers that he lists: a religion of the Bible, of the primitive church, and of the Church of England. And this emphasis mirrors comments he makes about the Christian faith elsewhere when he says about theology “if it’s new it’s wrong.”
Wesley may have been creative at times to promote his evangelistic mission, but his earnest attempts to remain as traditional as possible are often missed by later interpreters who do not understand his context. For example, even his irregular ordinations in 1784 were done according to the rubrics of the Prayer Book! And that is an example of what was probably his most creative moment.
Wesley was a “traditioned” man, an authentic conservative. Not a right-wing populist, but someone who drank deeply from the wells of the past, who knew that the old wine, or the old story, was best. Attempts today to make Wesley into a sort of unhinged or unmoored pragmatist are profoundly misleading. While it’s possible for formalists to miss out on the life of the movement, many who try to contemporize Methodism miss out on the point of it.
Bear in mind that Wesley envisioned Methodist practice to include a liturgical, Eucharistic service on Sundays, society meetings during the week for preaching and singing, another day for some sort of small group meeting, personal devotions throughout the week, and taking every opportunity to help those in need, all on top of the regular rhythms of everyday life. This isn’t a religion of convenience. It’s almost monastic. Methodism at its best is primitivist, old school, steeped in the historic patterns of Christianity.
The religion of the Bible. In the New Chapel sermon, Wesley is adamant that what the Methodists were doing in the British Isles and even recently in the American colonies was profoundly biblical. They believed in the truthfulness of the Bible. But their focus was the transforming religion of love, that biblical religion, that they were preaching to anyone who would hear.
In his earlier work, Wesley described this old, biblical religion as “no other than love: the love of God and of all mankind; the loving God with all our heart, and soul, and strength, as having first loved us, as the fountain of all the good we have received, and of all we ever hope to enjoy; and the loving every soul which God hath made, every man on earth, as our own soul.”
Wesley continued, “This love is the great medicine of life, the never-failing remedy for all the evils of a disordered world, for all the miseries and vices of men. Wherever this is, there are virtue and happiness, going hand in hand” (Earnest Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion).
A truly Wesleyan view of Scripture begins with the question of holiness, and throughout our history we have been convinced that a holy life and a biblical life are one and the same; the Bible is a means of grace, a faithful helper in that journey toward holy love, which is a Christ-like life. And this, as Wesley says, is the message of Scripture “as no one can deny who reads” the Bible “with any attention.” We don’t start with theories about the text, but with the promise of wholeness clearly described in the text.
Wesley clearly believed in the inspiration of Scripture. For Wesleyans, the Scripture was inspired when it was written and inspired for readers in the present. When Wesley published his own annotated version of the New Testament in 1755, one of Methodism’s historic doctrinal standards, he wrote, “The Spirit of God not only once inspired those who wrote it, but continually inspires, supernaturally assists, those that read it with earnest prayer.” To understand Scripture is to see its “general tenor,” the overarching narrative of God’s work of redemption, from the first page to the last. And to see that is to see its beauty, and the equally beautiful life it promises even now.
It is crucial to understand, though, that Wesleyanism’s relationship with Scripture begins with holiness. And as Jesus is the pattern of holiness, so the Scriptures describe his life. The Scriptures not only speak of Jesus from beginning to end, in Wesley’s view, but give us the Gospels, describing his life, ministry, atoning death, and glorious resurrection.
Scripture, and especially the life of Jesus, demonstrates a distinct concern for the poor. From the beginning of the Wesleyan movement, a Christ-like concern for the poor has been at the center of its mission. John Wesley famously preferred the company of the poor, even writing about them as Christ figures. Despite his own Oxonian pedigree, he was notoriously uncomfortable around the wealthy, a distinct difference between him and his younger brother, who worked easily with those across the various classes of their day.
The religion of the early Church. Just as Wesley believed that Scripture points us to a saving relationship with Christ, so he saw in the early Church those who both contended for the faith once delivered (Jude 3) and even more importantly those who sought the face of Christ.
Wesley’s view of church history looked for what might best be described as “purity points,” or persons, eras, and communities that, in his view, could be seen as patterns of holy love. The early Church, before Emperor Constantine, was his favorite. But we shouldn’t imagine that he lacked an affinity for the church fathers and mothers after the first Christian emperor.
Wesley’s love for the early Church began early in his own life. His affinity for the early Church came to full bloom when he was a student at Oxford where the high church attachment to the church fathers and, at least at Oxford, to the virtue ethics of Aristotle, shaped his thinking for the rest of his life. He did, in fact, have a nickname: “Primitive Christianity.” And it was out of this ancient faith that he, like so many others at the time, came to believe that the atonement of Christ was available to all, that grace was poured out on all people, and that God was seeking to be in relationship with all. This is catholic Christianity at its best, and Methodism is an expression of it.
If you look at Wesley’s ministry, he arguably saw the Methodist movement as an attempt to live out the best patterns and practices of the early Church, to bring what he saw as the best of the past – in this case the first few centuries of Christian witness – to the present. And in this case, his vision was a radically different one than either a pragmatic American evangelicalism or that of Protestant liberalism, both too modern in their assumptions and practices. Wesley had a love for the early church because he believed it to be close to Jesus, not just chronologically (although that was important to him) but also in the way the early Christians lived.
The intentionality of the early church struck Wesley profoundly. Their commitment to the faith – even in the face of sporadic persecution – and their commitment to one another as brothers and sisters in Christ inspired him. This can clearly be seen in his desire for small groups and how these small groups, both classes and bands, evolved over the course of his ministry. They almost always entailed both a serious desire to grow in Christlikeness combined with a familial concern to “watch over one another in love.” Wesley was adamant that true Christianity was communal in nature. He once wrote, “‘Holy solitaries’ is a phrase no more consistent with the gospel than holy adulterers” (Hymns and Sacred Poems).
The sacramental vision of early Christianity also inspired Wesley. As a good Anglican, he avoided too fine a definition of Christ’s presence in the bread and wine of the Eucharist, but he believed wholeheartedly that Christ was present. This is no mere memorial, a view that he actually described as heretical in the preface of Hymns on the Lord’s Supper. And this is why he took the administration of Holy Communion so seriously, both in terms of the basic historic requirement that it be celebrated by validly ordained clergy, and also that, like the Church throughout time, it be celebrated with reverence and care.
The religion of the Church of England. Wesley’s triptych concludes with the Church in which he was born, lived, ministered, and died. One of the most damaging failures of contemporary Wesleyan thought is the belief that Wesley was not actually an Anglican, to see him and his movement as somehow impervious to time and place. We rob Wesleyanism of its riches if we take it – and Wesley – out of the ecclesiastical tradition that gave it life and content.
The genius of Wesleyanism can be seen when Methodism retains the sacramental and liturgical patterns of historic Anglicanism, a tradition that sought to retain the best of the Protestant world while also retaining the very best of the catholic inheritance. This isn’t a cookie cutter approach to a worldwide movement, but rather the acknowledgement that Wesley’s vision of holiness of heart and life was itself sacramentally driven and that the ancient dictum lex orandi lex credenda – the rule of prayer is the rule of belief – is profoundly true. The way we worship does, in fact, shape the content of our belief.
With the emphasis that the Wesleyan tradition places on personal experience, itself a good thing, this lack of sacramental and liturgical formation fails to provide the believer with the communal foundation that the Wesley brothers believed necessary to guide our experience toward ultimately fruitful lives. And the problem with this failure isn’t just that we’re not taught our own heritage, but that it is inevitably replaced by something else, most likely the shifting and untried opinions of an ultimately secular pragmatism.
Thankfully, we have a rich, beautiful, tried, and ultimately scriptural tradition right at our fingertips. And whether we’re aware of it or not, the content of classical Wesleyan thought was forged within the communal life of English Christianity. Everything from our sacramental theology to Christian perfection, or even the very definition of grace used in Methodist preaching, comes from this historic wing of the Church.
For example, see the sacramental theology of Charles Wesley. With the same focus on holiness that is central to the Wesleyan message, he describes the Eucharist using the language of poetical theology, a profoundly Anglican description using an Anglican pattern of theological communication. It communicates mystery without holding so tightly to it that the mystery is lost:
O the depth of love divine,
Th’ unfathomable grace!
Who shall say how bread and wine
God into man conveys?
How the bread his flesh imparts,
How the wine transmits his blood,
Fills his faithful people’s hearts
With all the life of God!
It’s a complete historical fallacy to imagine that Wesley thought that he was called to rejuvenate a moribund church. Like the church throughout history, the Church of England in the 18th century had its successes and its areas of needed growth. One of the ways that the 18th century church can teach us today is through its engagement with a rapidly changing culture. These Christians developed ways to promote the historic faith in an age of reason, while also defending it against Deism, Unitarianism, and other forms of rationalist reductionism.
Ironically, perhaps, Wesley praises the Church of England and its Prayer Book – his common companion every day of his life – in the preface to his 1784 revision of that revered text, The Sunday Service. He wrote, “I believe there is no liturgy in the world, either in ancient or modern language, which breathes more of a solid, scriptural, rational piety, than the Common Prayer of the Church of England. And though the main of it was compiled considerably more than two hundred years ago, yet is the language of it, not only pure, but strong and elegant in the highest degree.”
It is in the Book of Common Prayer that we can find the basis for the Wesleyan vision of grace as the dynamic and relational power of the Holy Spirit. This alone is a treasure that we must not forget. The life-shaping work of grace is central to the proclamation of holiness.
The Church of England equipped Methodism with an historic link to the ancient church as well as to the great emphases of the reformation era: the new birth and justification by faith.
Wesley’s relationship with the Church, and its hierarchy, was not always an easy one. But his 1786 claim that “I still think, when the Methodists leave the Church of England, God will leave them” should rightly haunt us – primarily as a reminder that Methodism at its best is a movement of renewal, not a self-serving institution. Methodism must be engaged with the larger Church in order to remain authentically Methodist. And this engagement must include the Church of our own day as well as those who have gone before.
The Genius of Wesleyanism. What I hope that I’ve described is an historic, faithful, dynamic, and Spirit-enabled community organized around the attainment of Christian perfection. Without it, it’s hard to call any of this Wesleyan. Whether looking at Methodism as the old religion, the biblical faith, the belief and practice of the early Church, or even the Church of England, what lies at the heart of an authentic Wesleyan witness is the sure hope that the restoration of the image of God in each and every one of us begins now, not just in a future state. The promise of Scripture can be experienced now. The wholeness that God has for us can, and should be, lived now. The freedom that we have in Christ is a freedom we can have now.
But Wesley also knew that human frailty is real, therefore we need one another. And we need the formative power of the church’s historic patterns of worship and witness. We need fellow believers now, just as we need the tried and true formation of those who have gone before us. Our need includes, among so many other things, the church fathers and mothers, the councils of the Church and the creeds they formulated, the English reformers and their witness, and the liturgical practices of two thousand years. Christianity is not a solitary religion, and that includes the idea that we can be somehow solitary in the present, without need of our forebears.
What Wesley envisioned for Methodism as long as it exists in this world is that it can be a community of holy love where the wholeness promised in Scripture and lived by the saints is a common expectation. He once wrote that he wasn’t afraid that Methodism might cease to exist, but that it might “have the form of religion without the power.” In fact, this expectation that God continues to work today in human hearts and communities is a hallmark of Methodism that should never be lost. That expectation is not simply an intellectual one, but one given present reality by the encounter of the risen Christ, in the cleansing waters of baptism, in the means of grace, in Scripture read and proclaimed, in works of mercy, and in that “grand channel of grace,” Holy Communion.
The genius of Wesleyanism is that it takes the best of the past and brings it to the present that all might experience the freedom and wholeness found in holy love. Yet as Wesleyans we know that this isn’t a song exclusive to us, but the song of all those who have gone before us in the faith. Wesley knew this. He was adamant when he said that Methodism was nothing new.
The song starts with Jesus, the embodiment of all the promises of God. He taught this song to his apostles who in turn taught it to the early Church, and on through the centuries. Our task is to join the faithful chorus, to harmonize with the song of holy love that has been sung long before we were born and will continue well after we have joined the heavenly chorus. In so doing, we will faithfully communicate the Wesleyan message, because it is nothing less than scriptural Christianity, a beautiful hope for us all.
Ryan N. Danker is the founding director of the John Wesley Institute, Washington, D.C., and Assistant Lead Editor of Firebrand. Dr. Danker is the author of Wesley and the Anglicans: Political Division in Early Evangelicalism. This article originally appeared in Firebrand (www.firebrandmag.com) and is reprinted by permission.
by Steve | Mar 13, 2024 | March/April 2024
Looking Ahead to GC 2024
By Heather Hahn (United Methodist News)
After a four-year delay, the next General Conference of The United Methodist Church is rapidly approaching. It will take place April 23-May 3 in Charlotte, North Carolina. During their December meeting, the commission members that plan the event heard updates on efforts to ensure General Conference delegates from outside the United States receive the required visas to attend.
The UM Church typically holds its General Conference every four years. Before the pandemic shut down world travel, the coming session was initially scheduled in May 2020 in Minneapolis.
The 2024 General Conference comes as the denomination is grappling with the withdrawal of more than 7,600 U.S. congregations from The United Methodist Church. Those departures represent about a quarter of U.S. churches leaving the denomination under a disaffiliation policy passed by the 2019 special General Conference. The bulk of those departures took place in 2023 before the disaffiliation policy officially ended on December 31. Whether that church-exit policy will be extended beyond this year or expanded to include churches outside the United States will be up to General Conference. The same is true for any change in the denomination’s policies related to LGBTQ people.
All told, General Conference has received 1,100 properly submitted petitions. The Book of Discipline – the denomination’s policy book – requires that all petitions must receive a vote in their assigned committee and all legislation approved by a committee must receive a vote by the full General Conference plenary.
Impact of disaffiliations. At its previous in-person meeting in May, commission members discussed how to handle petitions submitted by people who, for whatever reason, are no longer part of the UM Church. The Book of Discipline states that any United Methodist organization, clergy member or lay member may submit a petition to General Conference. The key phrase in that provision, the Discipline’s Paragraph 507, is “United Methodist.”
The commission approved a recommendation from its rules committee that will allow the Rev. Gary Graves, General Conference secretary, to enter a report identifying petitions submitted by people who have now left The United Methodist Church. Graves will base his report on information provided by chairs of delegations. His report will be shared with legislative committee chairs and printed in the Daily Christian Advocate, a daily report on General Conference proceedings.
The Judicial Council – the UM Church’s top court – has ruled that annual conferences could hold elections to fill any vacancies in their General Conference delegations if their pool of reserve delegates is empty. However, the church’s high court has left it up to General Conference how to handle vacancies in delegations to jurisdictional and central conferences, which meet after General Conference takes place.
A number of U.S. annual conferences held elections earlier to fill vacancies in their jurisdictional conference slates. For now, those delegates are only provisionally elected. General Conference will have final say on whether those additional delegates can be certified to serve. Similarly, if General Conference chooses to allow those vacancies to be filled, annual conferences that have not yet filled vacancies on their jurisdictional and central conference slates will have the chance to do so after General Conference meets. However, if General Conference opts to leave those vacancies unfilled, then the provisional delegates will not be certified and no new elections will need to be held.
Visa updates. The commission also received an update on where things stand in ensuring elected General Conference delegates have the required visas to attend.
Commission plans call for the coming General Conference to have 862 voting delegates – 55.9 percent from the U.S., 32 percent from Africa, 6 percent from the Philippines, 4.6 percent from Europe and the remainder from concordat churches that have close ties to The United Methodist Church. Half are to be clergy and half lay. Bishops preside at General Conference sessions but do not have a vote.
Of the 862 delegates, 360 are to come from Africa, the Philippines and Europe. Kim Simpson, the chair of the Commission on the General Conference, reported that letters of invitation have been sent out to 262 of those delegates – the first step in obtaining visas. Simpson said the commission is currently waiting to receive passport information from another 45 delegates. For the remaining 53 delegates from central conferences, the commission is still waiting on their credentials from their annual conference secretaries.
Handling regionalization legislation. The commission also spent time discussing how to handle the multiple proposals coming to General Conference that affect the denomination’s global structure.
A number of United Methodists have submitted legislation aimed at putting the U.S. and central conferences on equal footing in church decision-making. At this point, central conferences have the authority to adapt the Book of Discipline to their contexts but the United States does not. One result is that U.S. concerns end up dominating General Conference, and the U.S. dominance has contributed to the debates over LGBTQ policies that rage at the global meeting.
The most prominent of the regionalization proposals aimed at changing this dynamic comes from the Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters, a permanent General Conference committee that meets between sessions. All regionalization proposals, including the standing committee’s plan, are currently assigned to be first considered in the conferences legislative committee.
The committee, whose members have already started discussing the proposals, would have responsibility for refining the legislation and voting on what heads to the full plenary for more possible changes and a vote. But because regionalization has the potential to affect other legislation at General Conference, the commission wanted some way for all delegates to at least keep the proposals in mind during their time in legislative committees.
The commission approved a recommendation that all legislative committees set aside time for delegates to discuss regionalization and how it will affect the work of their committee. That discussion would take place as the first order of business when legislative committees meet on April 25. The committees will receive a resource, including some questions for discussion, prepared by General Conference’s steering committee.
“Regionalization is at the forefront in the minds of every delegate coming, no matter how they feel about it,” said the Rev. Andy Call, a commission member from the East Ohio Conference. “We know that there are going to be significant conversations.”
Heather Hahn is assistant news editor for United Methodist News (www.umnews.org). This is an edited version of her comprehensive report.
by Steve | Mar 13, 2024 | March/April 2024
Room for Fairness in Charlotte
By Rob Renfroe
I believe most United Methodists are good, decent people. That may sound strange coming from one who has passionately argued that orthodox Christians would do well to leave The United Methodist Church. But my problem with the UM Church has not been with its people. My disagreements have been about principles and policies and theology. And good people can differ on those things.
My experience has been that the vast majority of United Methodists strive to be kind, want to embrace everyone with the love of God, believe in being fair, and are doing their best to make the world a better place. I think Garrison Keillor of Lake Woebegone fame got it right when, after having some fun with our quirks, he wrote, Methodists are “the sort of people you can call up when you’re in deep distress. If you’re dying, they will comfort you. If you are lonely, they’ll talk to you. And if you are hungry, they’ll give you tuna salad.”
Keillor could have added, Methodists are usually the ones running the local food pantry, leading the town’s Rotary Club, and hosting the annual Martin Luther King Day celebration for their community. United Methodists, whether traditional, centrist, or progressive, tend to be good people doing good things.
That’s what gives me some hope for the upcoming General Conference that convenes in April. The United Methodist Church needs to do a good thing, the right thing, the just thing and provide a way for churches outside the United States to disaffiliate in a way similar to what was afforded to congregations here in the U.S.
I know United Methodists in the United States want to move beyond disaffiliation. They want to be and need to be looking forward. They possess an understandable desire to be done with the hurt and chaos that disaffiliation has created. But you can’t be done with something that hasn’t begun. And the opportunity for churches outside the U.S. to leave the denomination hasn’t begun.
Our bishops ruled, rightly or wrongly, that the legislation passed in 2019 that allowed churches in the United States to leave did not apply to churches in other countries. So, for our brothers and sisters in Africa, the Philippines, Europe, and Russia, the opportunity for disaffiliation has not yet begun.
If the UM Church decides that it’s done with disaffiliation, it will be the church that tells the world that it is proper and fair to possess one set of rules for churches in the U.S. and a different set of rules for churches in other countries, most of which are in Africa.
If the UM Church decides to move forward without providing a fair exit path for international churches, it will disqualify itself from talking to the culture about doing justice. Give churches in this country that are primarily white and wealthy privileges that it does not afford to congregations outside the U.S., most of which are poor and persons of color, and The United Methodist Church will lose the moral high ground to speak to others about colonialism, racism, or justice.
When I met with forty African leaders in Nairobi last September, they were skeptical whether General Conference would give them the same rights and privileges we in the U.S. were given. They believe they are seen as “a problem” by many centrists and progressives in the U.S. They are accustomed to being treated as “less than” by the UM Church. They know the majority of United Methodists live in Africa, but receive only 32 percent (278 out of 862) of the delegates to General Conference.
They are aware that the Standing Committee on Central Conferences (the committee that oversees the work of Conferences outside the U.S.) has more than a third of its members from the U.S. – giving the U.S. an outsized say in how the Central Conferences operate. They still remember Bishop Minerva Carcano’s demeaning statement several years ago that they should “grow up and start thinking for themselves.”
They have not forgotten the Rev. Mark Holland of “Mainstream UMC” stating after General Conference 2019 that a continued partnership with the Africans might not be possible because they don’t appreciate or affirm our American culture. “A two thirds (2/3) majority of the U.S. church voted for cultural contextualization through the One Church Plan,” Holland wrote after the General Conference. “It was telling that eighty percent (80%) of the delegates from outside the U.S. declared, through their support of the Traditional Plan, that they are unwilling to allow the U.S. jurisdictions the same cultural contextualization they enjoy. This lack of reciprocation from delegates outside the U.S. may well lead to the end of our connection as we know it.”
Holland went on to state: “While there is no question that the U.S. church must continue to be in mission and ministry around the world, it is impossible to share a governance structure with a global church which is both fundamentally disconnected from and disapproving of the culture of the United States.”
The African leaders in Nairobi, from more than two dozen countries, are also aware that the real intent beneath the proposal for “regionalization” is to marginalize Africa’s ability to speak into the practices of the church in the U.S. So, it wasn’t surprising at the meeting in Nairobi that when one respected pastor referred to regionalization as “the apartheid plan,” there was no pushback, only heads nodding in agreement.
I understand why our African brothers and sisters are dubious that they will be treated fairly and justly when the General Conference meets in Charlotte this spring. I understand it will be easy for the delegates there to say, “we’re done with disaffiliation, and we need to move on.”
It will be tempting to forgo the difficult, unpleasant work of creating an exit path for those outside the U.S. who might want to leave. But if the delegates in Charlotte refuse to do the right thing for our international brothers and sisters, that would mean United Methodists, at least those representing us, are not really decent people who are committed to doing justice, no matter how many lonely souls they talk to, or how many international mission projects they support, or how many hungry people they bring tuna salad.
I refuse to believe that’s who United Methodists are – a people accepting of discrimination and who refuse to give others the same rights we in this country were given. I feel certain we are better than that. I pray – and in my heart of hearts I do believe – that traditional, centrist, and progressive United Methodists will do the right thing and provide justice for our brothers and sisters in Africa and around the world. In three months we’ll know if I’m right or wrong.
by Steve | Mar 8, 2024 | In the News, Perspective / News
African Regionalization Support Not Unanimous
By Forbes Matonga
(This week, UM News ran two commentaries from United Methodists from Africa dealing with pivotal issues that will be before the upcoming General Conference in Charlotte. We encourage United Methodists to read both pieces. For this week’s Perspective, we are featuring the commentary by the Rev. Forbes Matonga, a pastor and General Conference delegate from the Zimbabwe West Annual Conference. – Editor)
The United Methodist Church continues to be an exciting organism. It never stops, especially during General Conference season. We are exactly in that season again.
One of the complex dynamics of The United Methodist Church is the existence of pressure groups, commonly known as caucuses. Historically, caucuses were largely an American phenomenon, unknown to African United Methodists.
In the U.S., these groups took the flavor of national politics. Thus, the division was clearly along the lines of conservatives vs. liberals or traditionalists vs. progressives. It used to be that when Africans got to General Conference, they were amazed to see how these groups would solicit their votes, at times using demeaning methods I shall not describe here.
Over time, Africans realized that they do not exist at General Conference to push American interests. They have their own. African interests have included funding for Africa University, funding for theological education in Africa and fair representation on boards and commissions of the general church, to name a few.
The need for Africans to advocate for their own interests led to the formation of the first African caucus, named the Africa Initiative. This group was able to galvanize African delegates into a force that could not be ignored.
American conservative caucuses quickly formed alliances with the Africa Initiative that included providing financial support to gather and strategize. Progressive American caucuses, meanwhile, supported the startup of other African groups that differed from the Africa Initiative. They provided funding and helped these groups strategize.
Africa was targeted because its delegate numbers were growing, while American numbers were decreasing.
This sets the context to understand what was happening in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, recently, where Africans attending the United Methodist Africa Forum gathering are said to have unanimously endorsed regionalization and rejected disaffiliation by the same margin. Those who made this big decision included some African delegates and alternate delegates to the upcoming General Conference in Charlotte, North Carolina.
The first thing that makes this gathering interesting is the presence of big names in the United Methodist hierarchy, such as the chair of the Connectional Table, who happens to be the resident bishop of the hosting episcopal area including Tanzania. This is a sign of an express approval of this group by the powers that be in the denomination, both in Africa and globally. By contrast, in 2022, the African bishops denounced the Africa Initiative and the Wesleyan Covenant Association.
The question must be asked: How legitimate was the Dar es Salaam gathering?
I am the head of the Zimbabwe West Annual Conference delegation to General Conference. We were not invited to Dar es Salaam. I know in fact that no delegates from either Zimbabwe West or Zimbabwe East or the Malawi Mission Conference attended this gathering or the first Africa Forum gathering in Johannesburg, South Africa, in 2023. I may not be qualified to speak for all African delegations to the General Conference, but this is the case for the Zimbabwe Episcopal Area.
The United Methodist Africa Forum may speak for itself and pronounce its position, but it does not speak for me or the Zimbabwean delegates. The Africa Forum is not a forum for all African delegates.
The Africa Initiative, which has a substantial number of General Conference delegates as its members, clearly opposes the regionalization agenda. The initiative’s position is regularly articulated by its general coordinator, the Rev. Jerry Kulah of Liberia, a General Conference delegate himself.
A few African delegates have since moved away from The United Methodist Church in response to a wave of disaffiliations that hit the U.S. United Methodist Church, leading to the birth of the Global Methodist Church. However, most African delegates to General Conference chose to remain in The United Methodist Church, contending for the retention of the disciplinary language that prohibits same-sex weddings and the ordination of “self-avowed practicing” homosexuals anywhere in The United Methodist Church. This African group is very much alive and very capable of frustrating the liberal agenda to change the position of the church on human sexuality.
Let me stress this point: Regionalization as proposed does not go far enough to assure Africans that their position against the affirmation of same-gender relationships will not be compromised under the so-called big tent theological umbrella. Indeed, as long as the Council of Bishops itself is not regionalized, then this whole talk of regionalization is a smokescreen.
Currently, bishops of The United Methodist Church are bishops of the whole church. A gay bishop elected in America is a bishop for Zimbabwe, Nigeria, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. This is what Africa is rejecting. I hope our progressive and centrist brothers and sisters will understand that this time around.
The regionalization legislation requires a constitutional amendment, which needs approval by two-thirds of the delegates, plus two-thirds of all annual conference members across the globe. That’s not going to happen.
Many African delegates, who are the principal reporters to annual conferences on the outcomes of the General Conference, will advocate against regionalization, and it will fail at the annual conference level — even if progressives somehow get a favorable vote at General Conference.
It is instructive to note the pushback Pope Francis is getting from African Catholics for trying to promote liberal theology on human sexuality. They are rejecting his reasoning that one can bless gay people without marrying them while they are living as married couples. The United Methodist Church will, if it veers from its current policies on human sexuality, face similar pushback from Africans.
It is written, “A man will leave his father and his mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24, NIV). “…. and he (Jesus) said, ‘For this reason, a man will leave his father and his mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’” (Matthew 19:5, NIV). “For this reason, a man will leave his father and his mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh” (Ephesians 5:31, NIV).
We African United Methodists shall listen to no other voice, be it from angels, those who call themselves apostles, theologians, biblical scholars, or philosophers of this world. We trust the Word of God as given in Scripture! SOLA SCRIPTURA!
Forbes Matonga is an ordained pastor and a General Conference delegate in the Zimbabwe West Annual Conference. The Rev. Forbes Matonga, a clergy delegate from the West Zimbabwe annual conference, speaks to the 2016 United Methodist General Conference in Portland, Oregon. Photo by Paul Jeffrey, UMNS.
(As a counterpoint to Rev. Matonga’s piece, UM News also ran a commentary from the Rev. Gabriel Banga Mususwa. You can read it here. – Editor)
by Steve | Mar 1, 2024 | In the News, Perspective / News
Why We Will Be in Charlotte
By Thomas Lambrecht
Two recent stories from United Methodist News deserve a response. The first was a news article about the announced intention of Good News and the Wesleyan Covenant Association (WCA) to participate in the upcoming General Conference in Charlotte, NC, in April.
The second article was a commentary by the Rev. Lovett H. Weems Jr. further criticizing Good News and the Wesleyan Covenant Association (WCA) for our involvement. The argument voiced in both articles is that only those who have a long-term commitment to the UM Church should participate in deciding the future of that church.
In the words of the Rev. Drew Dyson, a delegate from Greater New Jersey, “Our polity should be determined by those whose intention is to remain faithfully within the UMC. In my estimation, Good News and the WCA are simply attempting to undermine and harm the work of the UMC under the guise of ‘fairness’ for their allies.” There were a handful of other critical responses in the news article. Fair enough. (It should be noted that both Good News President Rob Renfroe and I remain ordained clergy in good standing in the UM Church.)
Since 1972, Good News has participated in every General Conference by expressing our views on topics up for consideration at the conference. We have helped to organize like-minded delegates to support traditionalist positions on issues. Other caucus groups, such as Methodist Federation for Social Action, Reconciling Ministries Network, and other more liberal groups have engaged in similar activity at these same General Conferences. In the past, the Love Your Neighbor Coalition has even recruited non-United Methodists to come and participate in protests that have disrupted the functioning of the General Conference.
Our participation in the 2024 General Conference, however, will be different. Rather than lobbying the delegates on a host of issues of concern, Good News and the WCA are in Charlotte to focus on only two issues. First is the need to provide equitable, feasible disaffiliation routes for annual conferences and local churches outside the U.S. who have been denied the possibility that we in the U.S. had to discern our future. Second is to support our African friends in their opposition to the proposed regionalization of the church.
We will not be in Charlotte to “undermine and harm the work of the UMC” in any way (unless one considers enacting fairness and justice harming the work of the church). We will not be lobbying on the budget or attempting to block changes to the denomination’s definition of marriage and ordination standards. We will not be critiquing the proposed new Social Principles or weighing in on the number of bishops the church should have.
The future of the UM Church is for those who will be living with that future to determine. The question is, however, who will be part of the future UM Church. Will the church be a “coalition of the willing” or a “fellowship of the coerced?”
Is Disaffiliation Over?
The heart of the institutional UM narrative is that, in Weems’ words, “The period of disaffiliation is over. It is time for all groups to move on from dividing to unifying and disciple-making.”
Who gets to say that the period of disaffiliation is over? Institutional leaders in the U.S.? People who have already had the chance to discern their future in the UM Church?
How can disaffiliation be over when more than half the UM Church has not had an opportunity to consider disaffiliation, much less act on it? If the shoe were on the other foot, would the charge of colonialism be leveled? U.S. leaders should not be the lone arbiters for determining that the privileges and opportunities available in the U.S. will not be allowed in the central conferences outside the U.S.
There are other questions of fairness:
- How can disaffiliation be over when several annual conferences convinced some of their churches to wait to see what the 2024 General Conference does before considering disaffiliating?
- How can disaffiliation be over when a dozen U.S. conferences imposed such draconian costs on the process that it has been nearly impossible for churches in those conferences to afford to disaffiliate?
- How can disaffiliation be over when one annual conference said in late 2023 that churches had no grounds under the Discipline or Par. 2553 to disaffiliate and denied all further requests?
- How can disaffiliation be over when there are at least four lawsuits underway in annual conferences that have made it nearly impossible for churches to disaffiliate?
Weems writes, “The upcoming General Conference is for those who remain after the chaos of recent years. … They have chosen to remain not because they all agree, but because they are willing to live together despite differences.” Unfortunately for Weems, nearly half the delegates there have NOT chosen to remain. They have not been given the choice. In denying them the choice, the UM Church has handicapped itself and compromised its ability to move forward in a new direction.
Disunity Incompatible?
Weems states that “disunity is incompatible with Christian teaching.” It is easy to make that glib statement and point to Jesus’ prayer in John 17:21, “that all of them may be one.” At the same time, one must acknowledge that Christian unity is not necessarily expressed by all Christians being in the same denomination. Otherwise, we would all have to become Roman Catholic.
Unity is built on a common faith in Jesus Christ and a willingness to work together for the cause of the Gospel, regardless of denominational affiliation. Such unity and cooperation is less likely to develop in the aftermath of the imposition of punitive costs or the denial of equal rights and fairness.
At times, it may be pragmatically better to separate and work independently for the Gospel when people are unable to agree sufficiently to work together. Paul and Barnabas found that to be the case, as recorded in Acts 15:36-41. In the wake of the unity engendered by the Council of Jerusalem, they had a “sharp disagreement” and parted ways for their second missionary journeys.
Weems recounts that John Wesley and George Whitefield disagreed “vehemently” over some aspects of doctrine. Weems believes, however, that “Wesley concluded that it was better for the cause of Christ for them to work together, despite their differences, than to separate.” However, Wesley and Whitefield did separate in 1741. While they still considered each other brothers in Christ, and Wesley preached Whitefield’s funeral sermon in 1770, they did not work together in any organized way after 1741. Those who held a Calvinist doctrine were not allowed to preach in Methodist preaching houses.
This was one of the first of many separations that occurred within Methodism, on average one every ten years during the first century of Methodism’s existence. Separation, however, does not have to mean disunity. It will take a time of healing of wounds on both sides of the latest separation, but the possibility remains of some form of cooperative unity in the future between those who remain United Methodist and those who have separated. All on both sides should continue to strive now to maintain an attitude of graciousness toward those with whom we disagree in order to minimize the healing that is needed and hasten the opportunity for constructive cooperation.
I agree with Weems’ invitation to that graciousness: “In a country seemingly unreconcilably divided today, is not God calling us to put aside the accumulated acrimony and bitterness from years of words and deeds for which we all could have done better and wish for each other God’s blessings for the future?” Absolutely! Restoring fairness for all could go a long way toward putting “the accumulated acrimony and bitterness” behind us and enabling a positive future working relationship.
Agree on All Topics?
Weems describes the people who choose to remain United Methodist as “compatibilists.” He defines them as those “who do not expect all other members to agree with them on all topics.”
Anyone who has read a Twitter feed or Facebook group of Global Methodists and other disaffiliated persons knows we do not agree with each other on “all topics.” Traditionalists have remained a constructive part of United Methodism and its concomitant pluralism for over 50 years. It is only when the church failed to uphold its own teachings and disciplines that many traditionalists could not in good conscience remain in connection.
From all indications, the upcoming General Conference will most likely change the church’s definition of marriage to allow for same-sex marriage. Furthermore, it is expected to change the ordination standards to allow for the ordination of partnered lesbians and gays. For many traditionalists, this would be a contravention of the plain teachings of Scripture.
Not all traditionalists believe that disagreement over these issues is a church-dividing issue. But we believe those who do should have a fair opportunity to disaffiliate from a church that is changing its teachings and practices in these vital areas. Congregations and annual conferences that in conscience cannot support this change should not be required to forfeit their buildings and property and abandon their mission in order to disaffiliate.
We will be in Charlotte to give voice to those traditionalists who have not had a fair opportunity to disaffiliate, some in the U.S., but mostly in the central conferences outside the U.S. We pray the General Conference delegates will see the justice of our cause and respond in a way that opens the door for congregational self-determination and ends the unfair discrimination against Africans, Filipinos, and Europeans who cannot support the evident new direction of the UM Church.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and vice president of Good News. Charlotte, North Carolina. Photo: Andres Nino, Pexels