Silencing United Methodist Voices

Silencing United Methodist Voices

By Rob Renfroe

I have now been banned in two states. Ok, that’s a bit of an overstatement. Two annual conferences, each covering an individual state, have determined that I may not speak to their churches. Even though I am still a United Methodist elder. Even if I am invited by a United Methodist pastor to speak to his or her congregation.

As a matter of fact, I was recently disinvited to speak at a church. A district superintendent threatened the church’s pastor that my coming would likely result in the conference making it more difficult, if not impossible, for that church to exit the denomination – even though they were also hosting a proponent of staying in the UM Church.

One has to wonder: what are they afraid of? If the United Methodist Church is really a big tent that welcomes all. If the UM Church is still committed to the core doctrines of the Christian faith and our Wesleyan heritage. If it’s still the same church it was when we were all so attracted to its doctrine, polity and mission that we said, “that’s the church for me,” and we promised to support it with our prayers, presence, gifts, service and witness. If nothing has changed, why be afraid of a critic? Bring him in, listen to his misguided presentation, and dismantle his arguments with the truth about the UM Church.

Well, the charge is because I (and others – I’m not the only one who has been banned) spread “misinformation.” I guess the fear of some bishops and district superintendents – and their lawyers – is that people in UM churches will not be intelligent enough to determine what’s true and what’s not if they hear from people like me. In the past, UM leaders trusted the people in the pews to listen to God and determine a congregation’s mission, teach Sunday school classes, disciple children and youth, oversee budgets, and pay the salaries of conference officials. Today, these same conference officials do not trust the people in the pews to listen closely to all points of view, discern truth from error, pray and then make the right decision for how God would have their congregation move forward.

In the Old Testament when rulers felt threatened by the message of a critic, he was referred to as a “troubler of Israel.” Today church royalty use the term “dispenser of misinformation” to discredit those who challenge their narrative that all is well in the UM Church. Why? Because that is what privileged leaders who feel threatened do. They attack the messenger instead of critiquing the message.

On numerous occasions I have been charged with providing “misinformation.” My response is always the same: “Please show me what I have stated incorrectly, and I will be happy to apologize.” The response is always how someone felt about what I stated, what he or she inferred from my remarks, or a complete distortion of what I said or wrote. Recently when I was speaking at a church, someone said, “I watched a YouTube rebuttal to your videos about the problems with the UM Church by a leading pastor. He intended to disprove all the misinformation you had given out. When I finished, all he had done was give me more evidence to believe what you had said.”

Of course, the irony is that the same bishops and district superintendents who are silencing certain voices are at the same time selling the “big tent” promise of a future UM Church. Some of these leaders are claiming  there will be room for divergent beliefs and practices and every voice will be respected, all the while shutting down the sources they deem to be troublers of Israel and dispensers of information that challenges what they want you to believe.

We may be able to disagree about the future of the UM Church. But there cannot be any dispute that:

1. Not every United Methodist voice is allowed to speak to UM churches about their future.

2. Not every church that follows and fulfills an annual conference’s rules for exiting the denomination is allowed to do so. Just ask the three churches in Arkansas and the over 200 in North Georgia who did everything required and still were denied disaffiliation.

3. Not every point of view is respected by our leaders. Bishop Will Willimon described those who hold to a traditional understanding of sexuality as having hard hearts. Bishop Robert Hoshibata stated that traditionalists do not have the ability to incorporate reason into their thinking. Bishop Minerva Garza Carcaño wrote that Africans who do not accept homosexual practice need to grow up. Bishop Tom Berlin referred to the current UM position on sexuality as a virus that will make the church sick. Bishop Connie Mitchell Shelton recently described those who do not believe in ordaining practicing gay persons as “those with mean spirited arrogance” and told them it’s time “to move on and quit causing chaos.”

So, one point of view (mine) is that the UM Church will become a more and more hostile home for traditionalists and if you can leave, you need to do so now. Another point of view (held by most UM bishops including those referred to above) is that the UM Church will always be a big tent where every voice is respected and where traditionalists and their views will forever be welcome. One of those views is misinformation. You can decide which one. But one of those views is not allowed by some of our bishops to be stated in some of our UM Churches. At least, not by me and other troublers of Israel.

Oh, that church where I wasn’t allowed to speak? Evidently, they don’t like being threatened and bullied. They voted overwhelmingly to leave the UM Church the following week.

Rob Renfroe is a United Methodist clergyperson and the president of Good News.

Loneliness & Loving Our Neighbor

Loneliness & Loving Our Neighbor

Loneliness & Loving Our Neighbor

By Jennie Lyons

My hometown of Washington, D.C. was recently named the loneliest city in America. Another study found a growing number of Americans have few or no close friends at all. Most of us allow ourselves to get pulled ever deeper into the vortex of our phones, laptops, and television screens. We spend less time outside. Less time sleeping. And less time in intimate conversation. And we wonder why depression rates are sky-rocketing.

Garage doors go up and garage doors go down. We don’t take much time to really know our neighbors, much less love them as ourselves. When we do, it’s often a snap judgment. Is this person worth my time? Friendships are work, after all. But having them reaps all kinds of rewards.

A growing body of research shows intimacy benefits our mental and physical health as much as our eating habits, physical activity, and sleep. And multiplying your friendships expands those benefits. Increasing your number of deep, platonic love relationships reduces the risk of premature death even more than exercise and diet.

As much as I love my husband, he knows that there is something about my female friendships that fill a void that he just can’t. Shared understanding. Shared experience. Shared knowledge of all the joys and struggles and awesomeness of being a woman.

We are literally made for this. To connect deeply in a network of community. To percolate in all the beauty and messiness of our people. So why do we resist it?

For one, Western society is incredibly individualistic. Independence is encouraged and seen as strength. We’re also pushed toward a treadmill of performance that draws us inward. Even if you’re enlightened enough to look past these lies, another huge reason we don’t always pursue friendships is because we’ve been hurt. That makes it hard to trust again, doesn’t it?

We don’t want to be vulnerable. Believe me, I get it. I recently joined an activity where other people involved have known each other for years – more than a decade, in many cases. It’s been both beautiful and hard.

I’m becoming friendly with several people. There is also one specific woman I’d like to be closer to. In my excitement over how much we have in common, I tried pretty hard. Maybe too hard? I’ve felt a bit iced out at times.

Rejection still stings terribly, even in adulthood! It speaks to all my insecurities and leaves me with racing thoughts. Did I say something? Did I do something? And there isn’t always enough relationship capital there to address it.

This throwback to grade school angst renews my empathy for the social world our kids navigate every day.

It also got me reflecting on a beautiful children’s book I was recently introduced to about a boy, a mole, a fox, and a horse – an achingly touching tale about four creatures who find total acceptance and belonging in each other, despite their differences.

Unfortunately, the reality I’ve experienced is that when there is already a boy, mole, and fox, they are an established dynamic. Maybe two of the friends are open to the horse, but the third doesn’t like change. They already have their circle and it’s good. The others in the group will probably go along. Why rock the boat if it makes someone uncomfortable?

Well, that leaves the horse feeling rejected and unlikeable. It also keeps all of us missing the blessing of the wider circle of friendship. It’s terrible! So, why put ourselves through this?

First, even when it hurts, I’m a grown woman. I can pick myself up – knowing my worth is not defined by anyone else’s opinion of me, but far beyond it in the love of God. While rejection could have other explanations, the group not opening themselves up to the blessing is the one I choose to believe. We can chalk it up to human nature and move on. Sad, yes. But not personal.

We also do it because when it works, it’s amazing! Typically, when I put forth the effort, it pays dividends. Those intimate, unconditional friendships where you can tell another anything – no matter how shocking – and know they’ll still love you. There is no expectation or need to agree on everything. In fact, there is a curiosity of how the other reached a different view. In relationships like this, we don’t even fear conflict. Conflict is rare and, when handled well, can deepen intimacy. I am so thankful for the friendships I have like this. The ones where I can tell them I love them and it’s not weird. It’s returned. I cherish them as some of the greatest gifts in my life. And they wouldn’t exist if I hadn’t taken the risk on another.

Finally, we do it because life is literally all about relationships – with the divine and with one another. Jesus says our role is to love each other as he loves us (John 13:34). Every person God places in our path is a choice. How will we approach our neighbor? As an outsider? As someone who must prove themselves or put in their time? Or as a created being of sacred worth welcome into our world with arms wide open? When you meet every person as a reflection of God, it changes every interaction. And opens you up to incredible things.

I’ve learned to be gentle with myself. One of my friends describes me as “all in.” When I decide someone is my people, I commit myself completely and I’m ready to do life with them. Full stop. In processing through this recent rejection, my friend said, “some people might just need a little time to catch up.”

So even though it sometimes hurts, we can still love the things about us that make us, well, us. We also don’t need to turn from the possibilities that may still unfold in the future, even if we must release our expectations of today.

Most importantly, we can choose to open the door to ask, what if? What if you and I decide to live in a way that invites the next friend into our circle? How would the next bit of the book play out if not only the horse – but maybe also the bear who wants to come next – is embraced?

I think it could look a lot like Acts 2:42-46, where believers of different backgrounds break bread together and all are included and have enough. This kind of living gives us a glimpse of what is to come in the next life, which is our call to bring about here and now. What a gift to be a part of that!

Love God and love your neighbor as yourself. This sums up all the other laws, Jesus said (Matthew 22:36-40). It’s not some secret that God is hiding. But a gift God offers repeatedly in both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament as key to life and life abundant.

Friends, keep letting others in.

Jennie Lyons is a science communicator for the federal government and graduates with her Master of Divinity from Wesley Theological Seminary in May 2023. She guest preaches in the Washington, DC area, where she lives with her husband and two children. She also partners with a licensed local pastor in leading a dinner church out of her home, as a fresh expression of the United Methodist denomination.

Your Work Matters

Your Work Matters

By Timothy Keller (1950-2023)

In honor of the passing of the Rev. Timothy Keller, longtime pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City, we are reposting an excerpt from his book Every Good Endeavor (written with Katherine Leary Alsdorf) that served as the cover story of the September/October 2013 issue of Good News. While we had our theological disagreements with him (he was Reformed and we are Wesleyan), we had utmost respect for his winsome demeanor, intellectual vigor, and theological integrity. He was a beloved brother in Christ.

###

“Nevertheless, each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them, just as God has called them. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches” (I Corinthians 7:17)

Robert Bellah’s landmark book, Habits of the Heart, helped many people name the thing that was (and still is) eating away at the cohesiveness of our culture – “expressive individualism.” Elsewhere, Bellah argued that Americans had created a culture that elevated individual choice and expression to such a level that there was no longer any shared life, no commanding truths or values that tied us together. As Bellah wrote, “… we are moving to an ever greater validation of the sacredness of the individual person, [but] our capacity to imagine a social fabric that would hold individuals together is vanishing…. The sacredness of the individual is not balanced by any sense of the whole or concern for the common good.”

Near the end of Habits, the author proposes one measure that would go a long way toward reweaving the unraveling culture: “To make a real difference … [there would have to be] a reappropriation of the idea of vocation or calling, a return in a new way to the idea of work as a contribution to the good of all and not merely as a means to one’s own advancement.”

That is a remarkable statement. If Bellah is right, one of the hopes for our unraveling society is the recovery of the idea that all human work is not merely a job but a calling. The Latin word vocare ­– to call – is at the root of our common word “vocation.” Today the word often means simply a job, but that was not the original sense. A job is a vocation only if someone else calls you to do it and you do it for them rather than for yourself. And so our work can be a calling only if it is reimagined as a mission of service to something beyond merely our own interests. Thinking of work mainly as a means of self-fulfillment and self-realization slowly crushes a person and – as Bellah and many others have pointed out – undermines society itself.

At our church in New York City, we have many high-achieving young people who are recruited out of college or business school to work in the financial services industry. Lured by the recruiting process, signing bonuses, and compensation packages that far exceed those of other professions or industries, many of these young people barely consider other vocational alternatives.

Certainly some do sense that their job in financial sales, trading, private equity, public finance, or a related area is a way for them to offer their unique capabilities in service to God and others. Some, however, after a few years on Wall Street, determine that their strengths and passions are more suited to another vocation. Jill Lamar, for example, worked several years at Merrill Lynch before deciding she needed to make a change. A lover of books and a good writer herself, she decided to switch to publishing, starting again at the very bottom in pay and position. She wrestled with the fact that the opportunity to make a lot of money didn’t necessarily mean that banking was the vocation she should continue to pursue. She tried to think about how she could best use her gifts and passion to serve instead. Her decision created quite a flurry, even in the church!

Christians should be aware of this revolutionary understanding of the purpose of their work in the world. We are not to choose jobs and conduct our work to fulfill ourselves and accrue power, for being called by God to do something is empowering enough. We are to see work as a way of service to God and our neighbor, and so we should both choose and conduct our work in accordance with that purpose. The question regarding our choice of work is no longer “What will make me the most money and give me the most status?” The question must now be “How, with my existing abilities and opportunities, can I be of greatest service to other people, knowing what I do of God’s will and of human need?”

Jill took this last question very seriously. In her subsequent years in publishing, she found that she was good at editing and at discovering new writers. She grew in her passion for giving the world good stories to read. Sometimes the stories reflected her biblical way of thinking about the world, but sometimes they did not. She was looking for excellence. Eventually she directed a wonderful program for Barnes & Noble called Discover Great New Writers. Through this initiative she was able to give worthy new authors a chance to find a broader audience of readers.

Notice something counterintuitive: If the point of work is to serve and exalt ourselves, then our work inevitably becomes less about the work and more about us. Our aggressiveness will eventually become abuse, our drive will become burnout, and our self-sufficiency will become self-loathing. But if the purpose of work is to serve and exalt something beyond ourselves, then we actually have a better reason to deploy our talent, ambition, and entrepreneurial vigor – and we are more likely to be successful in the long run, even by the world’s definition.

Vocation and the “Masks of God”

No one took hold of the teaching of the first book of Corinthians, chapter 7 more powerfully than Martin Luther. Luther translated the word “calling” in these verses as Beruf in German, the word for “occupation,” and mounted a polemic against the view of vocation prevalent in the medieval church. The church at that time understood itself as the entirety of God’s kingdom on earth, and therefore only work in and for the church could qualify as God’s work. This meant that the only way to be called by God into service was as a monk, priest, or nun. They were called “the spiritual estate,” everyone else’s work was worldly, and secular labor was seen as akin to the demeaning necessity that the Greeks saw in manual labor.

Luther attacked this idea forcefully in his treatise To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation: “It is pure invention [fiction] that Pope, bishops, priests, and monks are called the ‘spiritual estate’ while princes, lords, artisans, and farmers are called the ‘temporal estate.’ This is indeed a piece of deceit and hypocrisy. Yet no one need be intimidated by it, and that for this reason: all Christians are truly of the spiritual estate, and there is no difference among them except that of office. … We are all consecrated priests by baptism, as St. Peter says: ‘You are a royal priesthood and a priestly realm’ (1 Peter 2:9). The Apocalypse says: ‘Thou hast made us to be kings and priests by thy blood’ (Revelation 5:9–10).”

Luther is arguing here that God calls every Christian equally to their work. In his exposition of Psalm 147, Luther lays out his basic idea of vocation, explaining why this is so. He looks at verse 13, which assures a city that “God strengthens the bars of your gates.” Luther asks how God can strengthen the bars – provide for the security and safety – of a city. He answers, “By the word ‘bars’ we must understand not only the iron bar that a smith can make, but … everything else that helps to protect us, such as good government, good city ordinances, good order … and wise rulers …. this is a gift of God.” How does God give a city security? Isn’t it through lawmakers, police officers, and those working in government and politics? So God cares for our civic needs through the work of others, whom he calls to that work.

In Luther’s Large Catechism, when he addresses the petition in the Lord’s Prayer asking God to give us our “daily bread,” Luther says that “when you pray for ‘daily bread’ you are praying for everything that contributes to your having and enjoying your daily bread. … You must open up and expand your thinking, so that it reaches not only as far as the flour bin and baking oven but also out over the broad fields, the farmlands, and the entire country that produces, processes, and conveys to us our daily bread and all kinds of nourishment.” So how does God “feed every living thing” (Psalm 145:16) today? Isn’t it through the farmer, the baker, the retailer, the website programmer, the truck driver, and all who contribute to bring us food? Luther writes: “God could easily give you grain and fruit without your plowing and planting, but he does not want to do so.”

And so we see what Luther means by God’s vocation. Not only are the most modest jobs ­– like plowing a field or digging a ditch – the “masks” through which God cares for us, but so are the most basic social roles and tasks, such as voting, participating in public institutions, and being a father or mother. These are all God’s callings, all ways of doing God’s work in the world, all ways through which God distributes his gifts to us. Even the humblest farm girl is fulfilling God’s calling. As Luther preached, “God milks the cows through the vocation of the milk maids.”

Vocation and the Gospel

While ancient monks may have sought salvation through religious works, many modern people seek a kind of salvation – self-esteem and self-worth – from career success. This leads us to seek only high-paying, high-status jobs, and to “worship” them in perverse ways. But the gospel frees us from the relentless pressure of having to prove ourselves and secure our identity through work, for we are already proven and secure. It also frees us from a condescending attitude toward less sophisticated labor and from envy over more exalted work. All work now becomes a way to love the God who saved us freely; and by extension, a way to love our neighbor.

This means, ironically, that Christians who understand biblical doctrine ought to be the ones who appreciate the work of non-Christians the most. We know we are saved by grace alone, and therefore we are not better fathers or mothers, better artists and businesspersons, than those who do not believe as we do. Our gospel-trained eyes can see the world ablaze with the glory of God’s work through the people he has created and called – in everything from the simplest actions, such as milking a cow, to the most brilliant artistic or historic achievements.

Work as an Act of Love

This revolutionary way of looking at work gives all work a common and exalted purpose: to honor God by loving your neighbors and serving them through your work.

Author Dorothy Sayers recounts how many British men and women stumbled upon something like this understanding of work during the dark days of World War II: “I believe there is a Christian doctrine of work, very closely related to the doctrines of the creative energy of God and the divine image in man. … The essential [modern] heresy … being that work is not the expression of man’s creative energy in the service of Society, but only something one does in order to obtain money and leisure.”

She goes on to explain what happens as a result: “Doctors practice medicine not primarily to relieve suffering, but to make a living – the cure of the patient is something that happens on the way. Lawyers accept briefs not because they have a passion for justice, but because the law is the profession which enables them to live.” But during the war many people were drawn into the army and found a new, surprising sense of fulfillment in their work. “The reason why men often find themselves happy and satisfied in the army is that for the first time in their lives they found themselves doing something, not for the pay, which is miserable, but for the sake of getting the thing done.”

Sayers was talking about wartime Britain, in which every person knew that their work was contributing to the very survival of their nation. But author Lester DeKoster does an excellent job of showing how indispensable work is for human life in all times and places. In his book Work: The Meaning of Your Life, he observes: “Imagine that everyone quits working, right now! What happens? Civilized life quickly melts away. Food vanishes from the shelves, gas dries up at the pumps, streets are no longer patrolled, and fires burn themselves out. Communication and transportation services end, utilities go dead. Those who survive at all are soon huddled around campfires, sleeping in caves, clothed in raw animal hides. The difference between [a wilderness] and culture is simply, work.”

Work as a Ministry of Competence

One of the main ways that you love others in your work is through the “ministry of competence.” If God’s purpose for your job is that you serve the human community, then the way to serve God best is to do the job as well as it can be done. Dorothy Sayers writes, “The church’s approach to an intelligent carpenter is usually confined to exhorting him to not be drunk and disorderly in his leisure hours and to come to church on Sundays. What the church should be telling him is this: that the very first demand that his religion makes upon him is that he should make good tables.”

In his book The Monday Connection, Lutheran leader and businessman William Diehl writes, “Through our work we can touch God in a variety of ways … but if the call of the Christian is to participate in God’s ongoing creative process, the bedrock of our ministry has to be competency. We must use our talents in as competent a manner as possible. Competency is a basic value. It is not a means to some other end, such as wealth or position, although such results may occur.”

The applications of this dictum – that competent work is a form of love – are many. Those who grasp this understanding of work will still desire to succeed but will not be nearly as driven to overwork or made as despondent by poor results. If it is true, then if you have to choose between work that benefits more people and work that pays you more, you should seriously consider the job that pays less and helps more – particularly if you can be great at it. It means that all jobs – not merely so-called helping professions – are fundamentally ways of loving your neighbor. Christians do not have to do direct ministry or nonprofit charitable work in order to love others through their jobs.

In particular, this principle is one of the main ways for us to find satisfaction in our work, even if our jobs are not, by the world’s standards, exciting, high paying, and desirable. Even though, as Luther argues, all work is objectively valuable to others, it will not be subjectively fulfilling unless you consciously see and understand your work as a calling to love your neighbor. When you do that, you can be sure that the splendor of God radiates through any task, whether it is as commonplace as tilling a garden, or as rarefied as working on the global trading floor of a bank. As Eric Liddell’s missionary father exhorts him in Chariots of Fire, “You can praise the Lord by peeling a spud, if you peel it to perfection.”

Your daily work is ultimately an act of worship to the God who called and equipped you to do it – no matter what kind of work it is. In the liner notes to his jazz masterpiece A Love Supreme, John Coltrane says it beautifully:

“This album is a humble offering to Him. An attempt to say ‘THANK YOU GOD’ through our work, even as we do in our hearts and with our tongues. May He help and strengthen all men in every good endeavor.”

Timothy Keller was the senior pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City and the author of many books. This article was adapted from Every Good Endeavor: Connecting Your Work to God’s Work, a book he wrote with Katherine Leary Alsdorf. It was reprinted by arrangement with Dutton, a member of Penguin Group (USA) LLC, A Penguin Random House Company. Copyright © Timothy Keller, 2012. Photo: Facebook. Tim Keller, Redeemer Presbyterian Church, New York City.

Denomination vs. Independent

Denomination vs. Independent

By Thomas Lambrecht

As of this week, over 3,000 U.S. churches have now disaffiliated from The United Methodist Church since 2019. This means the denomination has lost ten percent of its congregations. More annual conference votes are scheduled for the weeks ahead, and it is estimated that nearly 5,000 churches will have disaffiliated in the U.S. by the end of this year.

Disaffiliation is only the first of two crucial decisions for a congregation’s future. The second decision is whether to affiliate with another denomination or remain independent. And if the decision is to join another denomination, which one?

At last count, over 2,000 congregations had officially joined the Global Methodist Church, with many more in the pipeline to be approved. That makes it far and away the most popular choice among disaffiliating churches. There have been a few congregations that have joined other Methodist/Wesleyan denominations or formed informal networks of (mainly) large churches.

The choice to remain independent is probably the second most popular choice of disaffiliating churches. This article makes the case that connection to a denomination is a vital aspect of Christianity, and particularly of our Wesleyan heritage.

In Our DNA

Connection to one another is in the very DNA of Methodism. That connection began with the formation of small groups called “class meetings,” clusters of twelve who met together weekly for encouragement and accountability. In Wesley’s words, they “united in order to pray together, to receive the word of exhortation, and to watch over one another in love, that they may help each other to work out their salvation” (Book of Discipline, p. 78).

The key to the connection was “watching over one another in love” and “helping each other to work out their salvation.” Accountability and encouragement together led many to a steady growth in faith and kept them from falling away.

As Methodism grew, only those preachers who were “in connection” with John Wesley were allowed to preach in Methodist gatherings. That personal connection was again for the purpose of accountability and encouragement. It ensured that only Methodist doctrine was proclaimed from the pulpit. Those “in connection” with Wesley met annually (the annual conference) to pray for one another and to ensure that they were still all on the same page in terms of doctrine and practice. After Wesley’s death, the connection transferred to the annual conference itself. The Methodist preachers were in connection with each other and still met annually for accountability and encouragement.

Over the last 200 years, connectional accountability has been weakened and, in some instances, lost altogether. That is why the Global Methodist Church is so determined to reestablish that personal relationship of accountability and encouragement among its clergy.

That same principle of connection extends to congregations, as well. Congregations that are independent and not connected can easily come to feel isolated and alone, in need of encouragement. And they can easily lose the ability to hold themselves accountable to the mission of the church and to acting with integrity to live out the Jesus way of life and ministry.

Recent Examples of Needed Accountability

Just last week, it was announced that an influential evangelical pastor and author was placed on an indefinite leave of absence from Christ Presbyterian Church in Nashville. The pastor, Scott Sauls, “apologized for an unhealthy leadership style that harmed the people who worked for him and the church.” The leave came about after an investigation by the Nashville Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church in America. The investigation found that the church’s lay elders were also responsible for allowing an unhealthy culture on the church’s staff.

The involvement of a denominational accountability system enabled this church and pastor to address a problem before it blew up the church. Problems could be identified and remedies sought in order to correct the problems. The hoped-for result will be a healthier church and a pastor with a healthier leadership style. (In the interest of full disclosure, Good News magazine published an article by Rev. Sauls in the March/April issue. This was prior to the action by the presbytery.)

Contrast that way of addressing a similar problem with what happened at the Mars Hill Church in Seattle. Formed in 1996, by its peak in 2013 Mars Hill Church had an average weekly attendance of over 12,300 at 15 locations. When allegations of bullying and unhealthy leadership style surfaced regarding Pastor Mark Driscoll, the church had to attempt to resolve these issues on its own. Driscoll refused to accept the church’s proposed remediation steps and resigned. By 2015, Mars Hill Church dissolved and closed, and many of its other locations became separate, independent congregations.

Without the stability of outside oversight and denominational support, Mars Hill was unable to address an unhealthy leadership culture and ultimately could not survive as a church.

The sexual abuse crisis in the Southern Baptist Church (SBC) is another illustration of the importance of denominational support and accountability. Although the SBC is considered a denomination, it is really an association of independent churches. There is little denominational structure for holding pastors accountable for misdeeds or even communicating with other prospective churches that a potential pastor was found to have problems. The association has no authority to impose accountability on a local church.

When SBC pastors were accused of wrongdoing, they often just left their church and became a pastor at another congregation. Serial abusers were never caught and continued their abusive behavior. Churches have become potentially liable for million-dollar lawsuits filed by abuse victims. Without a denominational accountability and support structure, those congregations are left pretty much on their own to deal with a horrendous problem.

None of these examples are meant to besmirch the integrity of the denominations or networks associated with the clergy in question. United Methodists who have served on their annual conference’s board of ordained ministry are well aware that these kinds of challenges are confronted in all denominations.

At the same time, being independent sounds great, especially in reaction to the, at times, heavy-handed, top-down United Methodist denominational culture. That is, until the local church must find its next pastor all on its own, ensuring that they adequately vet the candidate for doctrinal fidelity, ministry effectiveness, and lifestyle congruence with the Gospel.

Beyond These Walls

A positive example of what a denominational connection can do was featured in the recent Beyond These Walls (BTW) missions conference held at The Woodlands Methodist Church in the Houston area. Originally put together by missions pastors at a number of large Methodist churches, BTW this year more than doubled in size, thanks to the denominational connections through the Global Methodist Church. BTW brought in top-notch speakers and workshop leaders to inspire, minister to, and equip local church pastors and lay leaders to make missions a key part of their ministry. It was the highest quality missions conference I have ever attended!

The personal connections local mission leaders could make at BTW with mission agencies will allow them to expand the mission outreach of their local churches. Dozens of workshops helped leaders learn how to do mission work more effectively, whether across the street or across the globe. At the conference, the Global Methodist Church announced the launch of its new mission portal that will become the denomination’s platform for connecting local churches to missions around the world. These blessings are not nearly as available to, nor are they as likely to be taken advantage of, by independent congregations not in connection.

It is often pointed out that connection has a multiplier effect in mission and ministry. Churches banding together in a common project or ministry can accomplish things that no single congregation can accomplish on its own. Opportunities for partnership and common action abounded at BTW.

I am, of course, biased in favor of the Global Methodist Church as the best option for disaffiliating UM congregations. I respect the integrity and effectiveness of its leaders, and I have confidence in the new denominational structure they are building that focuses on equipping and empowering local churches as the primary locus of ministry.

But whether it is the GMC or another denomination, the best option for local churches is to be in connection with other congregations that share their beliefs and values. As congregations make that second important decision, I hope they will move toward connection—it’s who we are as Christians and as Methodists!

Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and vice president of Good News.​​​​​​​ Photo: Lead Pastor, the Rev. Mark Sorensen, prays over next-generation leaders at the church conference where The Woodlands Methodist Church voted 96 percent to align with the Global Methodist Church. Photo by Steve Beard.

Are All Divisions of the Devil?

Are All Divisions of the Devil?

Are All Divisions of the Devil?

By Rob Renfroe

I don’t mind people thinking differently than I do. I often learn from such people, and I regularly benefit from considering opinions different than my own.

But I admit I am upset when influential leaders express views that seem shallow and vapid. Or when, to promote their agenda, they throw out emotionally laden half-truths that condemn their opponents.

On May 7, 193 churches in the Alabama-West Florida Annual Conference were approved for disaffiliation. Bishop David Graves used that occasion to state, “I’d like to use Scripture to tell you to behave and become better Christians and love each other more. For division is of the devil.”

Of course, we could all probably be reminded to behave and become better Christians and love each other more. But are all divisions of the devil?

That statement being made by a UM bishop is richly ironic considering the historical fact that the denomination he oversees began when the Methodist movement in the early years of a newly formed United States divided from the Church of England. Was that division of the devil? Were Wesley, Asbury, and Coke influenced by demonic forces in facilitating that separation? Should we all “renounce the devil and all his works,” and go back to being members of the Church of England?

Paragraph 2553 in the Book of Discipline that made a path for churches wanting to leave the UM Church was originally written by a progressive delegate to the 2019 General Conference. Was she demonically inspired? What about the vote on May 7 that allowed 193 churches to divide from the Alabama-West Florida Annual Conference. Were those who approved disaffiliation doing the work of the devil?

I am grateful that members of his conferences report Bishop Graves has been gracious and fair in handling congregational disaffiliations. That is what makes his statement all the more incongruous, perhaps a moment of emotional venting during a disheartening time for the continuing UM Church.

I assume Bishop Graves would say that his intention behind his statement was that the dynamics that led up to this division were of the devil. A pastor once challenged me in an accusatory tone after one of my presentations in Florida, “Well, it’s just wrong, this division that’s going on. Jesus prayed that we would be unified.” I asked her, “And whom do you hold responsible for this division? Those who have followed the Book of Discipline or those who have broken it? Those who say that until the Discipline is changed pastors should live by it and bishops should enforce it? Or the annual conferences that have publicly stated they will act as if parts of the Discipline do not apply to them, and the pastors who are disobeying it and the bishops who refuse to enforce it? Who is responsible for this disunity that you find so distasteful – those who have kept our covenant or those who have broken it?”

Divorce is not God’s will. But most pastors, myself included, have found ourselves counseling one who is being physically and/or emotionally abused by their spouse. We have heard others say that their spouse is breaking their marriage covenant and is unwilling to change. And though we know that divorce is not God’s perfect will, we end up stating, “You do not have to endure an abusive marriage. It’s OK to say that you will not stay in a relationship when you are being disrespected and mistreated in a way that puts your physical or emotional health in jeopardy. And even Jesus said that divorce is permissible in cases of adultery.” Very few UM pastors would say that divorce (the division of a marriage) in those circumstances is “of the devil.” Sad, yes. A last resort, yes. But, of the devil, no.

That’s where many of us in the UM Church have found ourselves. Our covenant has been broken. Those who have been unfaithful to it have said they will never change. And we traditionalists have been emotionally and verbally abused – being called everything from hard-hearted, hypocritical, incapable of reason, to not possessing the spirit of Christ.

In general, I agree that a church’s division is not the will of God. But there comes a time when a dysfunctional, destructive relationship needs to come to an end. Condemning the final act of division rather than all the events leading up to it – the breaking of the covenant and the abusive treatment that many progressives and centrists have shown toward those who have lived by the rules and obeyed the Book of Discipline – is at best shallow thinking and at worst a ploy to shame those who are leaving and an underhanded attempt to keep others from doing likewise.

We are living in difficult days. Some among us can no longer remain in a denomination that allows its bishops, pastors, and seminary professors to teach doctrines contrary to the orthodox Christian faith. Others have decided that they can no longer in good conscience give their name, their time, or their money to a denomination that allows its leaders to promote a sexual ethic that is not only in opposition to what the Bible teaches, but that might even lead people into sin and away from the Kingdom of God and eternal life.

Those decisions should be respected. If you believe the UM Church is unwilling to “contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints,” your decision to leave is not “of the devil.” It is reasonable, understandable, and may very well be the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Go out with grace. Do good to those who hate you. Pray for those who mistreat you. Bless those who curse you. But don’t let their shallow thinking or their half-truths cloud your mind, change your heart, or bring shame into your spirit. As we say here in Texas, “Vaya con Dios.”

Rob Renfroe is a United Methodist clergyperson and the president of Good News.