by Steve | May 19, 2023 | Front Page News
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.
by Steve | May 12, 2023 | In the News, Perspective / News
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.
by Steve | May 5, 2023 | In the News, Perspective / News
Same-Sex Wedding Prompts Bishop to Act
By Thomas Lambrecht
Bishop Sharma Lewis (Mississippi) has responded to two clergy persons who performed a same-sex wedding in January. The Revs. Elizabeth Davidson and Paige Swaim-Pressley officiated at the wedding ceremony of a “non-binary” couple in Tupelo, Mississippi. The term “non-binary” means that one or both persons participating in the wedding ceremony do not identify exclusively as male or female. The couple had reportedly met the two clergy persons when the clergy served as chaplains at Millsaps College, a United Methodist-affiliated school in Jackson, Mississippi.
According to a report from United Methodist Insight, a complaint was filed against the two clergy persons in February. Attempts to reach a just resolution of the complaint stalled and the two clergywomen requested a mediator be brought into the talks, which is allowed by the Book of Discipline. Bishop Lewis reportedly declined. According to Religion News Service (RNS), the clergywomen have been asked to surrender their clergy credentials or face a church trial. In the meantime, Lewis has reportedly requested the clergy persons be placed on involuntary leave. The Mississippi Board of Ordained Ministry Executive Committee would have to approve this request.
The “Traditional Plan” passed by the 2019 General Conference included provisions for a minimum penalty for clergy convicted in a church trial for “conducting ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions or performing same-sex wedding ceremonies.” The minimum penalty for a first offense is one year’s suspension without pay. The minimum penalty for a second offense is termination of conference membership and revocation of credentials of ordination (Discipline, Par. 2711.3). Notably, the request by Bishop Lewis for immediate surrender of credentials goes to the maximum penalty.
Not In Virginia Anymore?
Bishop Lewis’ actions in the Mississippi case contrast sharply with her response to a similar case when she was the bishop in Virginia. In 2022, the Virginia Conference requested a declaratory decision by the Judicial Council alleging the failure of Bishop Lewis to follow the proper procedure for resolving a complaint.
According to briefs filed in the case, a pastor performed a same-sex wedding in September 2019. That same month, complaints were filed against the pastor. By January 2020, the supervisory process had failed to reach a just resolution, and Bishop Lewis referred the matter to a counsel for the church to proceed with charges and a trial. However, no charges were filed, no Committee on Investigation hearing was held, and no progress was made in resolving the complaints. Through emails sent to the accused pastor, Bishop Lewis made clear that she remained in control of the process during this time. In fact, she argued in her brief that she has six years (up to the limit of the statute of limitations) for charges to be filed. To this day, over three years later, no charges have been filed, and the accused pastor has not been held accountable for his violation of the Discipline. (The pastor has not been placed on involuntary leave, either.)
It is unknown why Bishop Lewis seems to have taken a firmer stand in the Mississippi case than she did in the Virginia case. One hopes that she will not pull a repeat and turn the case over to a counsel of the church, only to sit on it for years (or until the Book of Discipline changes).
Does the Discipline Apply?
In the RNS article, “Swaim-Presley and Davidson say the Book of Discipline is silent on the topic of weddings between two non-binary people, while, on other matters, it directs deacons and elders to act according to their consciences.”
The Discipline defines marriage as between “a man and a woman” (Par. 161C). Any marriage between persons outside that definition is contrary to church teaching and performing such a wedding would be disobedience to the Discipline. Further, one could argue that both members of the couple being “non-binary” means that they are both of the same sex or gender.
The clergy persons argue that the Discipline recognizes the right to civil disobedience. “We recognize the right of individuals to dissent when acting under the constraint of conscience and, after having exhausted all legal recourse, to resist or disobey laws that they deem to be unjust or that are discriminately enforced” (Par. 164F). They justify their acting in defiance of the Discipline as an act of civil disobedience against what they consider an unjust church rule.
However, this situation is not in civil society, involving governmental legislation and courts, but in the church. In civil society, people have little recourse when faced with an unjust law. If unable to change the law, their only other option is to leave the country. In the church, however, clergy voluntarily submit to church rules. If they find they disagree so deeply with church rules that they feel compelled to disobey, they have the option of freely withdrawing from the denomination and joining another church that has beliefs more in line with their own. Integrity would demand that they do so, rather than cause conflict in the church by disobeying its rules.
In addition, our Discipline goes on to say regarding civil disobedience, “Even then, respect for law should be shown by refraining from violence and by being willing to accept the costs of disobedience.” It seems these clergy persons want to have it both ways. They want to be free to pursue “ecclesiastical disobedience” but not have to accept the consequences of potential suspension or loss of credentials.
Judicial Council Rules “No Abeyance”
This all takes place in the context of the concept of holding complaints involving LGBTQ persons in abeyance. (According to AskTheUMC: “The term ‘abeyance’ means ‘delay.’ It does not mean a refusal to implement the Discipline. It means delaying further action on certain kinds of charges for a limited period of time and for particular reasons.”). That idea was part of the Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace through Separation put forward in early 2020. The idea was that, since the impending 2020 General Conference would hopefully pass the Protocol and ultimately eliminate the chargeable offenses related to LGBTQ persons. It did not make sense at the time to pursue complaints regarding actions that would in a few short months be no longer contrary to the Discipline.
However, five months became four years and support for the Protocol waned among progressives and centrists. While the idea of holding complaints in abeyance was always up to the decision of individual bishops, the rationale for abeyance had passed. With the third postponement of General Conference, Good News, the Wesleyan Covenant Association, and UM Action all announced they would no longer refrain from filing complaints involving LGBTQ persons. (Very few complaints have been filed, and none of these organizations filed the complaint against the clergy in Mississippi.)
Recently issued Judicial Council Decision 1483 states, “It is only in the context of ongoing or imminent civil or criminal proceedings that abeyance can be contemplated. Therefore, Paragraph 2 is a prescriptive statement that directly affirms the abeyance or moratorium and constitutes a call to action that runs counter to the Discipline.”
The Discipline provides that, “A complaint may be held in abeyance with the approval of the Board of Ordained Ministry if civil authorities are involved or their involvement is imminent on matters covered by the complaint” (Par. 362.1g). That is meant to cover a situation where a clergy person might be charged with breaking a civil law and put on trial. In such cases, the church complaint process needs to take a back seat, so as not to impinge on the civil proceedings.
The idea of abeyance was always a bit dicey under church law. Traditionalists were willing to support the concept in the interest of reducing conflict in the church while we anticipated an imminent amicable separation. Due to the postponement of General Conference, no amicable separation plan has been adopted, and the current separation is often not amicable in some annual conferences.
With this latest ruling, the Judicial Council has taken abeyance off the table regarding complaints involving LGBTQ persons.
Implications
It is encouraging to see Bishop Lewis take firm action to enforce the Book of Discipline’s prohibition of same-sex weddings, provided that she follows through with a trial. We urge that fair process be followed and any church trial handled with the seriousness and sensitivity such a proceeding deserves.
The RNS article states that “both clergy had left Millsaps for nonprofit roles by the time they officiated the wedding in January.” Because neither clergy person is serving as pastor of a church, it is unclear what the impact of a suspension or involuntary leave would have on their position. Presumably the nonprofits with which each works agree with their stance on same-sex weddings and would not suspend or remove them from their positions. The bishop or annual conference could not remove them from their non-church positions, although the bishop could withdraw their appointments, forcing them to take a leave of absence as clergy while continuing in their nonprofit roles. If clergy credentials are essential to their nonprofit work, the loss or suspension of those credentials could impact their ability to do their jobs. Primarily, it would mean that they could not be involved in sacramental ministry, administering Baptism and Holy Communion, nor could they perform any more weddings for anyone.
It is widely expected that the General Conference in 2024 will remove the prohibitions against same-sex weddings in the Book of Discipline. What the two clergy persons have done illegally now would then no longer be illegal. If their credentials are removed this year, would they then be readmitted to ordained ministry next year? In this instance, it might seem that a one-year suspension or a leave of absence from ordained ministry might be the more appropriate penalty.
What this situation points out is that, as long as traditionalists remain in The United Methodist Church, the existing terms of the Discipline will be expected to be enforced. The best way forward for those who want to affirm and celebrate same-sex marriage would be to allow those traditionalists unwilling to support that to graciously exit the denomination. It makes no sense to try to coerce traditionalist congregations to remain United Methodist, where they will be a stumbling block to the “inclusive” agenda.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and vice president of Good News.
by Steve | May 1, 2023 | In the News
Two Churches, Two Faiths
By Rob Renfroe
In last week’s Perspective I wrote about a professor at a United Methodist seminary whose lengthy article stated that the death of Jesus does not save us. In fact, Professor Miguel De La Torre wrote that such a belief disenfranchises the marginalized and threatens women. The response to my criticism of the professor’s article reinforced my belief that not only are we different tribes within The United Methodist Church – we are, in fact, two different faiths.
When I speak to a church about whether disaffiliation is the right path for their congregation, I outline three important differences that divide The United Methodist Church. First, I talk about how differently United Methodists see the Bible. I finish with our divergent views regarding sexuality. But the main difference, the most important and essential difference that divides us, I tell the audience, is what we believe about Jesus. Before I go any further, I tell them that if we have significant differences about Jesus, then the question is not “can we share the same church?” but “do we share the same faith?”
That’s a fair and valid question because Christianity is Christ. Other religions are different. Islam and Buddhism have revered originators whose teachings create a path to enlightenment. Hinduism and Judaism do not have founders in the same sense, but they have teachers and prophets who are admired for their closeness to the divine and for what they have revealed about how to live a righteous life. But what “saves” a soul in these religions is not the founder or the teacher but the path that he revealed.
In other words, Buddhism is not Buddha. Islam is not Mohammad. Judaism is not Moses or Isaiah or Jeremiah. Hinduism is not any one of the gurus. In each case the truth that saves is what they taught and a person’s obedience to that revelation.
But Christianity is different. Christianity is Christ. Jesus was a teacher of profound spiritual truths which we strive to follow. But what saves in Christianity is not his teachings and our efforts to obey them. What saves in Christianity is Christ – his life, death, and resurrection. What makes Christianity different is that Jesus himself is “the way, the truth and the life.” What saves us is not our attempts to reform ourselves, or our efforts to seek justice or our striving to follow the teachings of Christ. What saves us is Jesus – the sinless life he lived, the atoning death he died, and the transforming power of his resurrection.
So, if we have fundamentally different views of Jesus within the UM Church, we don’t simply have different theologies within one church, we have different faiths.
Of course, not every pastor or leader that is remaining in the UM Church following disaffiliation has an unorthodox view of Jesus. Some, perhaps many, pastors remain true to a traditional Christian understanding of the faith.
The problem is that the UM Church has given up the idea of proclaiming “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Ephesians 4:5). Our doctrinal standards have no compelling or authoritative purpose. Instead, every pastor can proclaim their own version of the faith. The result is a confused laity, an unclear witness to the world, and a church devoid of the power that comes from a consistent discipleship.
Back to my critique of Dr. De La Torre’s claim that the death of Jesus does not save us. Of course, many who responded agreed with what I wrote. But others, United Methodist pastors primarily, felt a need to take me to task.
Some were respectful. One pastor wrote very politely that he disagreed with me. He stated that he had taught all his ministry that the death of Jesus “was not a substitution but a showing that we must follow the way of love to the end.” I appreciated the spirit of his comment, but we see Jesus very differently. He understands Jesus to be an example. I see the life of Jesus to be our example and the death of Jesus to be our salvation.
Some were predictable. They, again UM pastors, wrote that my critique was not helpful, that I was bashing the church and dividing it. They wondered why I had to be so negative. Amazingly, they thought my pointing out that a professor at a UM seminary denies that the death of Jesus saves us was more of a problem than the professor denying that Jesus died for our sins. I wonder how these pastors respond to Jude calling false teachers “ungodly,” “blots on your love feasts,” “trees without fruit,” “waves casting up the foam of their own shame,” “stars for whom the outer darkness has been reserved”? How do these UM pastors react when Paul tells the Galatians that if teachers among them preach a different Gospel “let them be under God’s curse.” Jesus himself told us to be wary of false prophets. Pointing out our differences about who Jesus is doesn’t create division. It simply reveals that division exists. And one must wonder why so many UM pastors find that shining a light on our differences is so offensive.
Some responses, of course, were more belligerent. They attacked the idea of substitutionary atonement as “divine child abuse.” The idea that God required a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin according to one UM pastor is “morally reprehensible.” And then he wrote exactly what I have told traditional congregations wondering if they can stay in the UM Church: “And this is precisely why in America right now, we don’t have one church, we have two. And they are as different as Hinduism from Buddhism. We just need new names for them.”
Exactly. There are two different churches within the UM Church. Really, two different faiths. That’s what this pastor, a progressive, believes. That’s what I, a traditionalist, believe. And we’ll both tell you that. But you’ll never hear a centrist bishop or pastor say that we are two churches, even two faiths. I could tell you why, but that’s another article.
Rob Renfroe is a United Methodist clergyperson and the president of Good News.
by Steve | Apr 21, 2023 | In the News, Perspective / News
Departing from the Faith
By Rob Renfroe
“Jesus did not die for your sins.” That is the message a professor at United Methodist Iliff Seminary posted two days before Good Friday earlier this month. Professor Miguel De La Torre titled his article “What if Crucifixion Is Not Salvific?”
It may come as a surprise to some that a professor at a UM seminary would promote such a view, but it is a belief that is not uncommon among UM pastors and professors. Last year on Good Friday a UM pastor posted the same declaration on the UM Clergy Facebook page and received the same complimentary responses as Professor De La Torre did from UM pastors – “thank you for telling the truth,” “thank you for saying what so many of us believe,” “thank you for stating that God would never require a sacrifice to achieve our salvation.”
According to De La Torre, “Jesus’ death neither pays a ransom nor is a substitution for us.” In fact, the idea that the cross secures our salvation, the professor states, is a “eurochristian” invention that disenfranchises the marginalized and threatens women. All this despite what the Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures” (I Corinthians 15:3). Despite John presenting Jesus as “the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” (John 1:29). Despite Peter writing that that Jesus “bore our sins in his body” upon the cross (I Peter 2:24). Despite Jesus himself saying, “This is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matthew 26:28) and “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45).
One might think De La Torre is an isolated example. In a blog entitled “Hope for Regeneration” posted on Easter Sunday (!), Rev Mark Y.A. Davies bemoaned “the substitutionary atonement theology of Jesus being a human blood sacrifice for our sins to satisfy what could rightly be seen as a sadistic God, and the emphasis on a miraculous supernatural physical resurrection of Jesus.”
Davies goes on, “Members of the Christian tradition who insist on adhering to a theology of substitutionary atonement that requires the shedding of Jesus’s blood to take away the sins of the world would do well to remember that violent shedding of blood by an oppressive empire does not redeem us. … Persons can be followers of Jesus and the way of bringing good news to the poor and liberation to the oppressed without making the crucifixion be the plan of a sadistic God who requires a gruesome human blood sacrifice for our sins to be forgiven.”
Regarding the resurrection, Davies asks, “What if the focus on physical resurrection has actually diminished the core message and meaning of Jesus’s life? What if the physical resurrection has become an idol of the Christian faith that hinders persons from engaging the life and teachings of Jesus in this world?” This despite Paul arguing for the historicity of the bodily resurrection of Jesus and stating, “If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. … And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins” (I Corinthians 15:14, 17).
Ironically, Davies is not only an ordained United Methodist elder, but he is also a professor of social and ecological ethics at Oklahoma City University. In addition, he is a member of the UM University Senate, “an elected body of professionals in higher education created … to determine which schools, colleges, universities, and theological schools meet the criteria for listing as institutions affiliated with The United Methodist Church.”
Davies has abandoned United Methodist beliefs, as defined by our doctrinal standards – the Articles of Religion (AoR) and Confession of Faith (CoF). “The offering Christ freely made on the cross is the perfect and sufficient sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, redeeming man from all sin, so that no other satisfaction is required” (CoF Article VIII). “Christ did truly rise again from the dead, and took again his body, … wherewith he ascended into heaven, and there sitteth until he return to judge all men at the last day” (AoR Article III).
Yet, Davies is deemed qualified to judge whether colleges and seminaries are sufficiently United Methodist to be affiliated with our denomination! In fact, he writes, “You can be a follower of Jesus’ way … without believing that Jesus miraculously came back to life after the Roman authorities in Jerusalem executed him for sedition.” You can be a Christian without believing that Christ died for your sins and rose bodily from the grave as the first fruits of eternal life.
Not only is Davies wrong about what it means to be a Christian and a United Methodist, he is allowed to teach and preach these mistaken beliefs and even hold a position of authority within the UM Church in deciding which colleges and seminaries promote UM doctrine. No one is holding him accountable for departing from the faith.
We are told by centrists in the UM Church that they will not let the UM Church drift from its historical, biblical roots. But they already have. No one is holding professors or pastors who deny the central claims of the Gospel accountable. Not centrist leaders or bishops. It’s time to be honest. The chief shepherds of the UM Church, elected or self-appointed, are unwilling to defend our doctrines or protect their flocks from false teaching – even a doctrine that is as foundational to the Christian faith as “Jesus died for our sins and rose again on the third day.”
A close friend of mine accepted Jesus shortly before I did when we were both teenagers. It was at the same time as the “Jesus Revolution” depicted in the recent movie. My friend became a beautiful witness of a Christ-centered life. In college, though, he drifted from the faith and studied all the world’s religions. Eventually, he renounced his commitment to Christ and chided me for my simplistic faith. As an adult, he lived a promiscuous life and became very successful professionally. Years later, praise God, he came back to his first love and rededicated his life to Christ. When I asked him what brought him back to Jesus, he said, “I studied all the religions of the world and every one of them has some important truth to share. But as I looked at my life, I realized I didn’t need more truth to live up to – I couldn’t live up to the truth I already had. What I needed was a Savior who could save me from my sins. And there is no other Savior than Jesus.”
De La Torre, Davies, and other UM professors and pastors may not feel the need for a Savior. But my friend did. I do. And if you do – his name is Jesus. He died for your sins, he paid a ransom for your soul, he was buried and on the third day he rose from the dead. Because of his shed blood, you can be made right with God and live an abundant life in this world and eternally with the God who made you to be in relationship with himself.
De La Torre, Davies, and other professors at UM colleges and seminaries will continue to teach future UM pastors and leaders that Jesus did not die for our salvation and that he did not rise again from the grave. Those charged with protecting our doctrines and promoting our faith will continue to be silent. Many in our pews will continue to be oblivious or unconcerned because they love their local church or they feel a need to defend an institution. But our Lord Jesus will continue to be the Lamb of God whose death reconciles our sinful souls to a holy God and whose resurrection is the hope of the world.
Rob Renfroe is a United Methodist clergyperson and the president and publisher of Good News.
