by Steve | Nov 4, 2022 | In the News, Nov-Dec 2022
By Elizabeth Fink —
Would you believe me if I told you that from the age of 18 to the present, I have had at least 13 different addresses and attended eight different churches? I think it is safe to say that I had good reason to refer to myself as a nomad during my early adult years. Each place I lived offered its own unique experiences and has helped develop me into the person I am today.
However, there is one challenge that presented itself everywhere I went, and that was the lack of a peer group or community of young adults that shared similar foundational beliefs. Many young adults find it difficult to cultivate that kind of formational community in or around the Church.
From my perspective, United Methodism does not offer a strong young adult ministry. United Methodism’s “Young People’s Ministries” mainly focuses on children and youth. Young adults are often tacked onto that group because they don’t know where else to put them. In most churches, no one really knows what to do with young adults, so they either get ignored or attached to another group. There is a wide gap between youth ministry, college ministry, and young adult ministry, and yet churches often think of them in the same category.
What made it more difficult for me to find community was that even if I did find a young adult group, it either leaned theologically more progressive or functioned solely as a social club, with too much virtue signaling and not enough Jesus. I remember thinking to myself on a fairly regular basis, “Am I really the only traditional Methodist young adult around?” On occasion I did find another traditional young adult in United Methodist circles, and it was the Holy Spirit that led us to find one another. We were drawn to each other like bees to honey.
It wasn’t until I joined the Wesleyan Covenant Association and got more involved that I truly began to feel like I wasn’t alone. I met more and more young adults who were seeking the same kind of community and foundation of faith I was. Many of these are spread out across the United States and even around the world, so when the idea of starting a young adult group was brought up in the WCA, I thought, “This is brilliant!”
We have created a group called the Young Adult Methodist Connection. The Wesleyan Covenant Association sees and acknowledges the struggle for young adults to find and connect with one another and wants to help link those clergy and laity who are under the age of 40 and interested in joining the Global Methodist Church. By leaving young adults without a deep faith resource to turn to, the UM Church has inadvertently stirred up a holy discontented generation of young adults who crave a deep relationship with the living Christ and are motivated to spread scriptural holiness throughout the land.
Our hope is that no one will feel alone or isolated, and that young adults won’t struggle to find others in the GMC like them who are strong in their foundation of biblical faith. This is especially important now because many of us are feeling the effects of being caught up in the toxic environment that is found throughout the UM Church as it struggles with splitting.
When it comes to what a young adult group needs to look like, some words that are familiar to a lot of us come to mind: “prayers, presence, gifts, service, and witness.” More than ever, young adults need a space where they are encouraged and can serve as an encouragement through prayer, testimony, and having a safe space to ask questions and to discern.
There will be opportunities for general group gatherings with the potential for events specifically geared towards young adult clergy, seminary students, and lay leaders. We will keep you informed on new developments and upcoming events.
One of the exciting parts of developing this fellowship from the ground up is that we have a chance to shape it from the beginning. It will be a global community of young adults formed and led by young adults.
I’m looking forward to meeting and connecting with more young adults like me spread out over the connection. We are a generation of leaders ready to enter a new denomination with excitement about the future.
Elizabeth Fink is a student at Asbury Theological Seminary and the secretary of the WCA’s Global Council. If you are interested in being a part of this group or have any questions, please contact me at youngadults@wesleyancovenant.org. There is also a Facebook group. Photo: Shutterstock.
by Steve | Nov 2, 2022 | In the News
PRESS RELEASE 11/01/22
Africa Initiative Calls for Election of New Bishops in the Central Conferences of Africa
The Judicial Council, in its Decision 1445 (May 2022), gave permission for the Council of Bishops to call jurisdictional conferences this year to elect new bishops. Referencing Par. 45 of the Constitution of The United Methodist Church, the council ruled that “electing and assigning new bishops is essential to the establishment of a unified superintendency and episcopacy and the continuance of an episcopacy in The United Methodist Church.” They acknowledged that failure to elect new leaders would cause a strain upon existing bishops that threatened the health of the church. New bishops are also being elected in November 2022 for the Philippines, and Europe where no special ruling was required.
Africa is the only sphere of United Methodism where new bishops are not being elected. The three African central conferences are where the needs for additional episcopal supervision are most severe. Only 13 episcopal leaders provide leadership for such a vast Continent with the fastest growing population of the UMC. In fact, these 13 bishops provide leadership for as many members as are served by 46 bishops in the United States.
In light of this need, the 2016 General Conference in Portland, Oregon, approved the election of five additional bishops to strengthen the leadership capacity of the current bishops in Africa. Six years later, these new bishops have yet to be elected. The Council of Bishops been recently silent about the need for additional bishops in Africa. Some of our bishops who were due for mandatory retirement since 2020 to present are endorsed by the Council of Bishops to stay on until 2024. While episcopal elections take place in the U.S., Philippines, and Europe, we have only this word from the Council of Bishops: “Episcopal leaders in Africa announced that no new bishops would be elected on the continent until after General Conference, now scheduled in 2024”.
What are the disciplinary justifications for this decision? Whom did they consult prior to making this decision? Are there no qualified clergy to replace episcopal leaders due for retirement, including those who have long passed mandatory retirement age? Why did nominations take place in the Sierra Leone Annual Conference in anticipation of election to replace the late Bishop John K. Yambasu who died in a tragic motor accident about two years ago?
Why should an American retired bishop continue to lead the Sierra Leone Annual Conference when that conference has conducted nominations and is awaiting the West Africa Central Conference to elect its bishop to lead the conference? Why has the Council of Bishops endorsed such a decision by the Africa College of Bishops in contravention to the 2016 Book of Discipline, and against the wishes and aspirations of the membership of the central conferences of Africa? Why dash the hopes of the Sierra Leone Annual Conference and that of other annual conferences who are looking forward to electing new bishops to replace bishops due for retirement? Why treat the central conferences of Africa in such a demeaning manner as if we do not matter? We consider this action on the part of African College of Bishops, with the acquiescence of the Council of Bishops, as a violation of our rights to elect our own bishops when they are duly scheduled to be elected. This is a gross injustice to the growing membership of the three central conferences. The decision is therefore unacceptable.
Hence, we call for the election of new bishops in the three central conferences of Africa where elections are due.
Please consider the following:
- It is public knowledge that the election of new bishops is overdue in all three African central conferences due to mandatory retirement rules that govern our church.
- There is no justification for treating Africa differently than the rest of the UMC.
- Even if all current episcopal areas were filled, there would still be a shortage of episcopal leadership in Africa.
- It is disturbing to say the least that the Council of Bishops would agree to a plan that treats the African central conferences as second-class citizens of the United Methodist Church. While committed to confronting injustice, they have participated in a great injustice.
- The Council of Bishops has not acted consistently with its own past actions in enforcing the retirement rules of the Book of Discipline. This action on the part of the Council of Bishops violates the rights of the membership of the annual conferences of the UMC in Africa.
- It is not healthy for leaders to seek to hold on to power past their tenure. The church should model good governance for the rest of society.
- The committees on episcopacy in the central conferences seem not to have been consulted in the decision to postpone elections. This is certainly true in the West Africa Central Conference and seems to be the case elsewhere.
- There is an abundance of trained and qualified African clergypersons available to replace our bishops who have reached mandatory retirement.
The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church, in Paragraph 542.1, empowers the executive committee of each central conference to set a time and place for central conferences to meet. We call upon these executive committees to do so at the earliest possible opportunity. Alternatively, we call upon our African bishops to reconsider the decision to elect no new bishops before the next General Conference. This action would demonstrate their honest stewardship of the shepherding responsibility of God’s church entrusted to their care. By making such a decision, which is in the best interest of the three central conferences of Africa, they would finish well in ministry, and leave behind a positive legacy upon which current and future generations shall build toward the advancement of God’s Kingdom here in Africa until Christ returns. Thank you.
Rev. Dr. Jerry P. Kulah
General Coordinator, UMC Africa Initiative
by Steve | Oct 24, 2022 | In the News
By Thomas Lambrecht
“As of today, I am responsible for 18,617 abortions.”
Those were the words on a note handed to my friend, the Rev. Dr. Carolyn Moore, pastor of Mosaic Church in Evans, Georgia. It was from a young woman who was desperately seeking counsel. “For three years, she’d been working in an abortion clinic, rising in the ranks to the place of managing several clinics in Georgia for an owner in Tennessee,” wrote Moore. “The day she came to see me, she’d decided she was done and wanted help getting out.”
Carolyn’s congregation was able to help the young woman get in touch with a group that helped her begin a new life. “That job, by her account, nearly destroyed her soul,” observed Moore in a series of articles on her blog.
Abortion continues to divide our national life.
Ever since the Supreme Court Dobbs decision last June determined that the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee the right to abortion, the U.S. has seen a political frenzy aimed at either preserving abortion rights or capitalizing on the new ability to restrict abortions. Political conflicts based on sound bites and power posturing do not help us think as Christians about our approach to abortion.
Because the situation has changed, many more people are paying attention to the question of when or if abortion should be allowed. Polls show that most Americans are in favor of allowing abortion in some circumstances, but not all. At the same time, opinion is deeply divided. Undoubtedly, the same is true in the church.
These discussions are deeply emotional because they affect the lives of real people: women with unintended pregnancies, their partners, and unborn babies. Decisions around abortion are often agonizing and difficult. Conflicting values come into play. Women often feel powerless or without resources to contemplate either abortion or continuing the pregnancy.
“The world is also full of young women who have made life-changing mistakes and who found a short-term solution in a clinic,” observed Moore. “I’ve talked to dozens of those women over the years and have discovered a kind of pain that rests uniquely with someone who holds the shame of a secret.”
We can either turn abortion into a partisan political football, or we can engage in thinking more deeply and discussing abortion from a Christian perspective. Leaving aside the question of what laws should be passed, which gets mired in the political weeds of the moment, what would it mean to have a consistently pro-life ethic regarding abortion – valuing the life and wellbeing of both the mother and the unborn child? The United Methodist statement on abortion offers some important principles that help us get past slogans and address real issues from a nuanced Christian perspective. You can find this statement in our 2016 Book of Discipline, Par. 161K.
The thoughts below highlight the principles in our Social Principles statement. It is my hope that these reflections on them can help foster greater understanding and a thoughtful approach to this difficult ethical issue.
The Sacredness of Human Life
The United Methodist statement begins by enunciating an important principle. “The beginning of life and the ending of life are the God-given boundaries of human existence. … Our belief in the sanctity of unborn human life makes us reluctant to approve abortion. But we are equally bound to respect the sacredness of the life and well-being of the mother and the unborn child.”
Human life itself is a gift of God, and the boundaries of human existence – the beginning and ending of life – are set by God, not determined arbitrarily by people. Because human life is a gift of God, it is sacred. That means it is set apart to serve the purposes of God, not to be used, begun, or ended at human whim. This gives us a deep respect for human life characteristic of the Christian worldview. This deep respect extends to the lives of unborn children, as it has since the beginning of the church 2,000 years ago. Scriptures that support this principle include Genesis 1-2, Jeremiah 1:4-5, Luke 2:39-45, and I Corinthians 6:19-20.
The most well-known passage is from the psalmist: “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be” (Psalm 139:13-16).
As Moore puts it, “Clearly, there is a war on life in our world, and it is most certainly a spiritual war. We devalue health in favor of immediate gratification. We devalue lives based on appearance, IQ, gender, or even difference of opinion (do I think someone who doesn’t vote like me or believe like me is as valuable as I am?).
“We forget that the value of every life is one. Every life. Every human body. Every soul.
“This is God’s great design. All life is sacred, and a person who engages in life-creating behavior enters into a sacred process. We are not given license to pick and choose how life happens or which children come into the world. That was never our charge. The alternative, then, is to receive life as a gift in whatever way it happens.”
Crucially, the Social Principles statement recognizes the sacredness of the life and well-being of both mother and unborn child. One should not be set against the other. Both should be cared for. Too often, the pro-life position only focuses on assuring the life of the unborn child, while the pro-choice position only focuses on assuring the well-being of the mother. To be consistently pro-life means to provide for the life of the unborn child, as well as its well-being after birth. It means to provide for the life of the mother and her well-being, both during pregnancy and throughout the childhood of her baby.
Abortion as Birth Control
The statement continues, “We cannot affirm abortion as an acceptable means of birth control, and we unconditionally reject it as a means of gender selection or eugenics.” With nearly one million abortions per year in the United States, it is often regarded as a means of birth control, like the Pill or the use of an IUD. There is a fundamental difference, however, in that abortion ends an already existing life, while other means of birth control generally prevent the conception of a new life. This is why we do not regard abortion as a legitimate means of birth control, since to do so would be to lose our sense of the sacred gift of that unborn child’s life.
Moore reports, “Ironically, today’s Planned Parenthood considers itself an advocate for women’s health. It is ironic because, while it purports to allow women a choice in giving birth, it supports and even promotes a practice that targets and endangers girls. Every day, all over the world, people hit the delete button on a life when they hear these words: ‘It’s a girl.’ … ‘In India, China, and many other parts of the world today, girls are killed, aborted, and abandoned simply because they are girls. The United Nations estimates as many as 200 million girls are missing the world today because of this so-called gendercide.’” As the Social Principles statement maintains, there is absolutely no justification for taking unborn lives for these reasons.
Some regard abortion as a “backup plan” in case of birth-control failure. That takes us into the realm of taking a human life that is already conceived and growing inside the mother because the baby is unwanted, or the mother feels she cannot adequately provide for it (more on this second point later).
In the first century, it was common practice for the Romans to abandon unwanted babies in the forest or field, where they were eaten by predators or died of exposure. Christians lived out their pro-life ethic by rescuing such abandoned children and raising them as their own. Surely, the same logic applies here to abortion. Always with outstretched arms, our role ought to be to rescue children in difficult circumstances.
The Limits of Choice
The popular slogan right now on the pro-choice side is “My Body, My Choice.” Christians should affirm the freedom and responsibility that men and women have to make decisions about what they do with their bodies. That freedom and responsibility begins with the decision to engage in a sexual relationship. Even the most effective birth control is not 100 percent effective. Any time someone engages in a sexual relationship, they should be prepared for the possibility that a child will be created. Taking responsibility for the consequences of one’s actions is a primary marker of adulthood. Both the men and the women who participate in the conception of a child have a responsibility to that child and to each other.
Our current medical understanding of neonatal science unveils a whole new way to view the dependent – and yet independent – relationship between mother and child. For example, an unborn child has a different genetic makeup from its mother and is a distinct human life. It is not the same thing as having a kidney removed.
“The pro-life message has been, for the last 40-something years, that the fetus … is a life, and it is a human life worthy of all the rights the rest of us have,” young mother Ashley McGuire told The Atlantic magazine last year. “That’s been more of an abstract concept until the last decade or so.” But, she added, “when you’re seeing a baby sucking its thumb at 18 weeks, smiling, clapping,” it becomes “harder to square the idea that that 20-week-old, that unborn baby or fetus, is discardable.”
In other words, when young couples view a sonogram for the first time and see a heartbeat, it makes placard slogans seem so woefully inadequate.
It is a short step from saying, “I don’t want a child,” to “I don’t want this child.” Some abortions take place because the baby is of the “wrong” gender or because it might have the wrong genetic characteristics. It has been reported that up to 90 percent of unborn children that have genetic markers indicating possible Down Syndrome are currently being aborted in the U.S. Whatever the reason for the child being unwanted, our posture as Christians should surely be on the side of protecting all human life.
Dealing with Exceptions
Whenever discussion of abortion comes up, people refer to the exceptional cases: children conceived by rape or incest, or situations where a continued pregnancy threatens the life or health of the mother. These instances are vitally important and deserve our attention.
According to reports from the Guttmacher Institute, these kinds of heart-rending exceptions make up less than 10 percent of all abortions. The basic principles of the sacredness of human life apply in the vast majority of situations.
The Social Principles state, “We recognize tragic conflicts of life with life that may justify abortion, and in such cases we support the legal option of abortion under proper medical procedures by certified medical providers.” Protestants historically have given priority to the life of the mother, believing that she has relationships and responsibilities (perhaps to a husband or other children) that would mean her loss would have more far-reaching ramifications. When a pregnancy threatens the mother’s life or could severely impact her health, many would agree that abortion could be justified to preserve the mother’s life and health. Of course, these kinds of decisions should never be made lightly and require the wisdom of Solomon.
The Social Principles do not take a position on the exception of children conceived by rape or incest. There are conflicting values in play. In these situations, the woman is pregnant without her consent. One value is that women should not be forced to bear a child to which they did not consent. On the other hand, there is a legitimate question whether the unborn child’s life should be terminated because of the sinful act of violence by which it was conceived. In the end these exceptional cases become a matter of personal decision by women and their families. The decision may depend upon what kind of support system the woman has and would take cognizance of the emotional and psychological effects of the violent act and the ongoing pregnancy.
Moore reminds us that we should “understand how God uses suffering and redeems mistakes. Because he does. In God’s economy, nothing is wasted. One of our families in church gave birth to a child with significant health issues. He was in critical care for months in another state and has had multiple surgeries since. After they arrived home, we visited this little one in the hospital, where he stayed for more months. As I stood on one side of the bed looking at this child – tubes everywhere – his mother said, ‘I can’t believe God trusted us enough to allow us to care for this one.’ That’s the very spirit of Romans 8:28. ‘In all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.’” God can use and redeem even situations where children are conceived by rape or incest.
The same is true when it comes to serious medical conditions in the unborn child. As mentioned above, abortion for the sake of eugenics is “unconditionally rejected” by the church. At the same time, the church recognizes an exception “in the case of severe fetal anomalies incompatible with life.” When the child has a fatal developmental or genetic defect, it is not a moral necessity to continue the pregnancy, but the child’s parents may decide to continue the pregnancy to see how God would use it for his glory.
The Church’s Ministry
Importantly, the Social Principles statement points out the need for the church to provide the support needed to women with crisis pregnancies. “We affirm and encourage the Church to assist the ministry of crisis pregnancy centers and pregnancy resource centers that compassionately help women find feasible alternatives to abortion.” The church can provide emotional, practical, and financial support to women who “feel that they have no choice due to financial, educational, relational, or other circumstances beyond their control.” “We particularly encourage the Church, the government, and social service agencies to support and facilitate the option of adoption.” We cannot just be issue advocates. We are called to be the hands and feet of Jesus in serving these women and their families.
The church’s ministry must be extended to all. “We commit our Church to continue to provide nurturing ministries to those who terminate a pregnancy, to those in the midst of a crisis pregnancy, and to those who give birth.” Regardless of a woman’s decision concerning abortion, the church can be a source of God’s love, support, healing, and (where needed) forgiveness.
In addition, the church can be involved in efforts to prevent unintended pregnancies. “The Church shall encourage ministries to reduce unintended pregnancies, such as comprehensive, age-appropriate sexuality education, advocacy in regard to contraception, and support of initiatives that enhance the quality of life for all women and girls around the globe.” These efforts can make a difference, both in individual lives as well as in cultivating a culture of life in our society.
In the area of advocacy, we can support the enforcement of laws that hold the child’s father responsible for financially supporting the child and its mother. Many pro-life advocates have also supported benefits that make it easier for families to have children, such as paid parental leave, health insurance coverage for all mothers and their children, and support for the expenses of child-rearing through the tax system. No woman should be in the position of choosing abortion simply because she feels she cannot afford to provide for her child. If we want to encourage women not to abort their children, we must remove some of the obstacles that stand in the way of that decision. Simply passing laws forbidding abortion will not be enough.
Compassionate care and provision for women with crisis pregnancies beyond the birth of their children is an essential aspect of being “pro-life.” There can be fair disagreement over specific proposals. But in an age when extended family support systems are not available for many women who are having children, society and the church must do more to ease the burden of child-rearing.
Jesus said, “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life and have it to the full” (John 10:10). God is the God of life, promoting abundant life wherever he is present (see, for example, Revelation 22:1-4). A holistic pro-life ethic recognizes that God desires not just quantity of life, but quality of life, as well. As we apply that pro-life ethic, we seek to maximize both the number of lives that are born into this world and the ability for each of those precious children to grow into fruitful adults who live out the gifts and personalities God bequeathed to them. As Christians, we can do no less.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News. Photo: Shutterstock.
by Steve | Oct 14, 2022 | Uncategorized
By Scott Field
By the end of May 1940, Germany’s rapid advance through north-west Europe had pushed the British Expeditionary Force (BEF), along with French and Belgian troops, back to the coast of the English Channel. Stranded on the beaches of the French port of Dunkirk, they faced certain capture, which would have meant the loss of Britain’s only trained troops and the collapse of the Allied cause. The Royal Navy hurriedly planned an emergency evacuation – Operation ‘Dynamo’ – to rescue the troops and get them to Britain.
To speed up the evacuation, an appeal went out to owners of pleasure boats and other small craft for help. Boats of all shapes and sizes cast off – 850 of them. These privately owned craft, the smallest of which was a 14’ fishing boat, became known as the “little ships.” The effort brought 338,000 soldiers – a third of them French – to safety in England between 27 May and 4 June. The evacuation, hailed as miraculous by the press and public, was a big boost for British morale. Losses at Dunkirk were still heavy, however. Winston Churchill pointed out at the time that great challenges remained, but the “little ships” response was a remarkable demonstration of resilience by the British people and for the British people. See photos here.
What do the “little ships” at Dunkirk have to do with United Methodists right now?
As I have been meeting with leadership teams from local congregations and responding to emails and phone calls from concerned United Methodists in our region and beyond, the risk-taking resilience of the Dunkirk “little ships” came to mind.
Allow me to clearly state three disqualifiers to what I am writing in this commentary:
- I do not want in the least to detract from the heroism of the actual participants in “Operation Dynamo.”
- My comparison here is an analogy at best; we are facing the denominational unraveling of United Methodism, not the literal threat of foreign military invasion.
- I want to highlight the resilience of local Methodists, akin to the courage of the British citizens who took matters into their own hands, in an unprecedented and challenging situation.
So, what about these resilient Methodists in their local churches?
If you listen to or read some of the progressive-leaning influencers within the United Methodist denomination, you might conclude that the Methodists seeking disaffiliation from the UM Church are narrow-minded, bigoted, uninformed, and under the sway of separatists who have been plotting a denominational revolution for decades. For progressives and liberationists, who normally assume institutions themselves are the source of so much oppression, entitled privilege, legacy discrimination, and the injustices plaguing the world, you would think they might also include United Methodism itself in their indictment of the “principalities and powers” that afflict us all, right?
Well, apparently not so much.
The folks in the High Tower, many of our UM leaders and administrators, seem to regard Methodists considering disaffiliation as an annoyance. We are gumming up the smoothly running machinery of United Methodism and the denomination will be much better off when we leave. In the meantime, while our denominational leaders themselves disregard the standards and accountability processes of the UM Book of Discipline in many cases, each congregation inquiring about the process of disaffiliation is informed with authoritative solemnity that they must follow the “letter of the law” when is comes to the requirements of Paragraph 2553. Though Jesus himself recommended seeking reconciliation, our denomination seems to prefer the alternative Jesus warned against, “And if that happens, you won’t be free again until you have paid the last penny” (Matthew 5:26; parallel in Luke 12:59). Many have suggested that for our leaders in The High Tower, it’s actually all about the money. Perhaps so.
Okay, but what about the resilient Methodists in their local churches?
I’m impressed with the laity taking the initiative in pursuit of a better future for their congregation.
- Local church administrative councils or boards have held congregational meetings to share information about the current denominational divide and have begun a process of discernment and, potentially, disaffiliation from the UM Church. One administrative team had to hold their information meeting in the local American Legion Hall because the pastor would not allow it to take place in the church building. A full house showed up at the Legion Hall regardless. Resilient Methodists.
- Others, recognizing that their church would probably not meet the required two-thirds majority vote to disaffiliate, are exploring the launch of “dinner church” or micro church meetings in their area, perhaps as satellite house-sized congregations connecting via livestream or recorded video with a larger Global Methodist Church elsewhere. They are resilient – willing to lean into a completely different model of church in order to cultivate their faith, experience Christian community, and share the transforming gospel of Christ with others.
- A group of members from seven UM churches geographically near each other are at work planning the establishment of a new Global Methodist Church initially comprised of themselves and other “wandering Methodists” in the area. They are planning to leave their “home churches” to form a new congregation together. Resilient Methodists.
- A congregation that describes itself as “small, rural, elderly, and on its last legs” has decided to continue providing free meals to the needy in their community. They hope the new Bishop arriving in January will leave them alone because they know they cannot sustain the financial costs of disaffiliation, are concerned that a new pastor might try to “convert them to progressivism,” are very happy with their current pastor’s biblical grounding, and presume they may close the church doors at the time of the next pastoral transition anyway. They are few, but they are stalwart in serving their community. Resilient Methodists.
In no way are these collectives of the narrow-minded, bigoted, and angry. They are warm-hearted and welcoming to all who are on a spiritual quest. They want to worship the Lord Jesus, offer the good news of salvation through faith in Christ, welcome any and all who are searching for redemptive community, and serve the needs of those nearby. These are resilient Methodists.
Three cheers for laity leading toward a new Methodism in their communities.
Scott Field is a retired United Methodist clergyperson and the leader of the Northern Illinois chapter of the Wesleyan Covenant Association. Dr. Field has been part of denominational renewal efforts throughout his ministry in the local church. Photo: Dunkirk – Operation Little Ships. British commemorative stamp (2010).
by Steve | Oct 7, 2022 | Front Page News, In the News
By Thomas Lambrecht
As churches are disaffiliating from The United Methodist Church over theological and ethical differences with the denomination, they are considering where to affiliate next. There is a small percentage that are choosing to remain as independent congregations, a course of action we believe to be shortsighted. (See last week’s Perspective on this issue.)
As someone who was heavily involved in helping create the Global Methodist Church, I whole-heartedly believe this is the best option for local churches looking for a Wesleyan denomination with which to affiliate. Here are a number of reasons why.
1. Formed by leaders we know and trust
The Global Methodist Church was formed by people who want to see the GM Church committed to making disciples for Jesus Christ. They have served in leadership in the same Renewal and Reform groups that have worked for decades to promote doctrinal integrity and biblical positions in The United Methodist Church. These include The Confessing Movement, Good News, and the Wesleyan Covenant Association. They are dedicated to the advancement of a Scripturally-based, historic Wesleyan understanding of the Christian faith. They are people of personal integrity and a strong life commitment to the lordship of Jesus Christ. Since these leaders have a track record of faithfulness and integrity, we can confidently follow their leadership in a new denomination.
2. Centered on maintaining Wesleyan doctrine and theology based on Scripture
The GM Church embraces a warm Wesleyan theology and a vibrant spiritual outlook. It has the same doctrinal standardsas the UM Church, with the addition of the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Definition of Chalcedon. Agreement with the doctrinal standards is required of churches aligning with the GM Church. All bishops and clergy will be expected to agree with, preach, and defend these doctrines, with robust accountability to ensure doctrinal faithfulness. The teaching of these doctrines through a new catechism will be a featured part of all GM congregations. At the same time, doctrines not considered part of the theological and ethical core are open for exploration and difference of opinion. As John Wesley said, “as to all opinions which do not strike at the root of Christianity, we think and let think.” The GM Church will have a clear vision about the “root of Christianity” and will make sure it is protected.
3. Prioritizing evangelism and church planting
GM congregations will be challenged to partner together to plant new churches and extend the evangelistic ministry of the church in their communities and in other parts of the nation and world. New churches are already being started under the auspices of the GM Church in the U.S. and in other countries. The GM Church has established a goal of planting thousands of new churches around the world during its first years of existence. We believe our congregations will have a vision for outreach and a global perspective.
4. Leaner, more effective denominational structure
The GM Church at both the general and annual conference level will rely on fewer and smaller organizational units to steer its ministry, rather than building large bureaucracies that require much spending to maintain overhead. The GM Church will partner with existing ministries with demonstrated effectiveness and commitment to Wesleyan theology to extend the church’s work, rather than building new ministries from scratch. This approach will enable much greater flexibility and adaptability to changing ministry circumstances.
5. Prioritizing the work of the local church
The local church is where disciples are made. The GM Church exists to support the ministry of the local church, not vice versa. All denominational decisions will be made within the framework of what will strengthen the ministry of the local church.
6. More resources for local ministry
The GM Church has capped the amount that a local church can be asked to contribute to the denominational structures. A maximum of 1.5 percent of local church operating income will go toward general church expenses. A maximum of 5 percent will go toward annual conference expenses. Initially, only 1 percent will go to each. More resources will stay in the local church to be used for effective ministry there.
7. No trust clause
The local church will own its own property free and clear, with no legal trust or obligation to the GM denomination. A simple, straightforward path of disaffiliation is offered for congregations that no longer find their home in the GM Church.
8. Robust accountability
Bishops, clergy, laity, and congregations will hold one another accountable to maintain Wesleyan doctrine and exhibit continued transformation and growth in discipleship. Bishops will be held accountable by a global committee of laity and clergy, not other bishops. Clergy will be held accountable through a fair and equitable judicial system. Laity will be encouraged to participate in accountable discipleship groups to support their growth in faith and Christian living. In the rare instance that a congregation welcomes teaching contrary to GM doctrinal standards or refuses to support the denomination’s work financially, it may be removed (following a collaborative dialog process).
9. Strong and clear biblical stances on marriage, sexuality, pro-life, and other bedrock issues
The GM Church’s Social Witness statements clearly define marriage as between one man and one woman, while reserving sexual relationships for marriage. Without getting into partisan politics, it states a clear pro-life stance on unborn children, while calling for greater support for women with unanticipated pregnancies. It puts forward clear, non-partisan statements on other bedrock ethical concerns, such as the value and dignity of all persons, opposition to prejudice and discrimination, concern for the poor, care for the earth, the rule of justice and law, and religious freedom. Scriptures are cited in support of each of the GM Church’s Social Witness statements. Readers are encouraged to consult the entire Social Witness section of the Doctrines and Discipline for more details.
10. A truly global church
The GM Church already has members in the U.S., Asia, Europe, and Africa. It is expected that a majority of members might be located outside the U.S. Members from all parts of the globe will be equally and fairly represented at General Conference and in the general work of the church. The denomination will be multi-racial, multi-cultural, and multi-national, learning from one another and living out the Gospel of Jesus Christ in many different ways.
11. Greater local church involvement in pastoral appointments
While pastoral appointments will still be fixed by the bishop, the local church will have greater input into whom the bishop appoints as pastor. Bishops will work with local churches to ensure their welcome of female and ethnic clergy on an equal basis. Pastoral appointments are intended to last longer, giving greater continuity to ministry.
12. A redefined role and process for bishops
While not included in the Transitional Book of Doctrines and Discipline, leaders of the GM Church are committed to a term episcopacy. Bishops are proposed to only serve for a set maximum term, perhaps 12 years, and would not be elected for life. Bishops are envisioned as spiritual and missional leaders, while being relieved of the responsibility to administer the temporal affairs of the church, which can be delegated to lay or clergy staff. Bishops are proposed to be assigned at the call of the annual conference to ensure the best leadership match.
13. Missions through partnership
The GM Church aims to facilitate missions by horizontally linking churches and annual conferences with each other across national boundaries. Financial support for missions will generally travel directly to partners, rather than through a mission bureaucracy. The two-way exchange of volunteers and learning opportunities will foster a mutual equality among mission partners around the world. Local churches and annual conferences will become more invested in cross-cultural missions through increased direct contact with mission partners.
14. Shorter route to ordination for clergy
Rather than the 6-10 years it takes in the UM Church to reach ordained ministry, clergy candidates can expect to be ordained as deacons in 1-3 years. Ordination as elder would take an additional 4-6 years. Half of clergy education would take place after ordination, enabling clergy to integrate classroom learning with current job experience. Various educational routes will enable less expensive and more flexible pathways to ordained ministry. Ongoing clergy mentorship will be an essential part of ministry in the GM Church. Denominational support for clergy education will be a keystone of the connectional financial plan.
15. Greater flexibility in ministry and structure
With unity on essential doctrines, much greater flexibility can be given for how local churches and annual conferences do ministry, based on their ministry context. The GM Church will have minimum requirements for organization of local churches and annual conferences, with maximum flexibility and adaptability for how those structural requirements are met. Best practices will be shared across the church, so that clergy, congregations, and annual conferences can continually learn from each other and implement the most effective methods of winning people to Jesus Christ and discipling them in the faith.
16. Social Witness statements will require greater consensus
To minimize divisions over denominational positions on social issues, all such statements will require a 75 percent supermajority vote to be adopted. The focus of such statements will be more on biblical principles than advocating partisan political solutions.
17. Opportunity to build a new denomination
With the GM Church, we have the opportunity to build a new denomination for the 21st century that maintains the best of our Wesleyan tradition, while adapting our methods to fit ever-evolving circumstances and correcting for the shortcomings experienced in The United Methodist Church. Joining another, pre-existing denomination means agreeing with and conforming to a church culture and manner of operating that has been developed over decades and will not easily change. The GM Church offers a much cleaner slate on which to write the principles of an effective and Christ-centered denomination that is more flexible and adaptable to today’s world.
Churches considering affiliation with the Global Methodist Church should study the Transitional Book of Doctrines and Discipline, which outlines how the church will function initially. A convening General Conference will flesh out details, such as the election and assignment of bishops. Churches should also contact the GM Church to invite a representative to speak and answer questions, as well as offer further clarification on what to expect.
Ultimately, the Wesleyan witness for Christ will be stronger if most of the disaffiliating churches align with one denomination, rather than splintering into various independent congregations or aligning with multiple existing Wesleyan denominations. The GM Church offers the best option for keeping the best of Methodism, while having the flexibility to try new ways of organizing for ministry and reaching the world for Jesus Christ.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News. Photo: Matt Botsford, Unsplash.
