by Steve | Feb 18, 2022 | Front Page News
Christians and the News Media (Part 2) – By Thomas Lambrecht
This is the second in a series of blogs looking at how Christians can view and interact with various forms of news media. When I was growing up, there were three networks, whose nightly news programs controlled the narrative. The public station had more in-depth analysis that tended to be more liberal back then. Major newspapers like the New York Times and the Washington Post were also highly influential, and their news stories often made the jump to the network programs.
Today, the media landscape is much more complicated, with all the previous news channels, plus dozens more on cable and the Internet. Social media adds the ability to amplify certain viewpoints and find sources of information that may or may not be credible. Most of the current news channels have a point of view that they are promoting, which influences what they report and how they report it.
This series of blogs is based on the book, Reading the Times: A Literary and Theological Inquiry into the News, by Jeffrey Bilbro. In the midst of the emotional and divisive atmosphere in our country, it can be helpful to back up and look at the bigger picture from a Christian perspective. Part 1 spoke about the question, to what do we pay attention? It surveyed the problem of paying attention to too much, leading to a hardening of our hearts and a reduced ability to care about and respond to the information that we hear or read. This of course has a spiritual dimension, as a hardened heart is much less responsive to the working of the Holy Spirit.
Today’s blog looks at another aspect of the problem, which is the filter that we use to view the news. Bilbro speaks of it in terms of time: cyclical vs. narrative time. Through most of history, the “news” consisted of what happened in relation to the king/ruler and priest/religious authority. In cyclical time, dates were figured based on the years of the king’s reign. The actions of the religious authority often determined the direction that the rulers and the society would take.
What the rulers and religious authorities did was considered “news,” while the things that happened to and with regular people was considered “gossip.” Only the former was considered important. A person would never find out about the latter unless they were in the word-of-mouth network where this “gossip” was shared. (Of course today, we have Facebook, Twitter, Nextdoor, and countless other apps that deluge us with this kind of “gossip,” which leads to the problem we talked about in Part 1 regarding paying attention to too much.)
In our own media environment, the cyclical filter results in our focus on celebrities, in addition to rulers (government officials) and religious authorities (popes and leading clergy). Many people fixate on what these celebrities (be they politicians, actors, musicians, athletes, or influencers) are saying and doing. Is this really the most important news of our day?
The other filter that is used to view news is the narrative filter. The people telling the news have a story or narrative that they are trying to tell, and they couch the news in ways that support that narrative. Much of the polarization in our country today is the result of conflicting narratives about who we are as a country and what we aspire to be.
News tellers formulate their telling of the news to support their own narrative and deconstruct the narratives of their opponents. The narrative determines what news is covered and how it is presented. News is no longer objective, but becomes a tool in the service of a cause. In the process, truth is sacrificed for the sake of promoting a narrative. And because it is a human narrative, it is partly false and incomplete (no matter what narrative “side” one is talking about). Yet, because the narrative acts as a filter, the narrative cannot experience the correction and refinement that comes from taking account of reality. As Christians, are we to disregard the truth and reality just because it does not fit our preconceived narrative?
A Christian Alternative
The Christian alternative, according to Bilbro, is not a happy medium between the cyclical and narrative filters, nor is it to reject both filters. Surprisingly, a Christian approach unites the two filters in a transcendent way to give a larger context to both celebrity and narrative.
As Christians, our “celebrity” or primary actor is, of course, Jesus Christ. Our primary focus, therefore, is on what Jesus has done and is doing in the world. Everything else fits around that.
The primary narrative is the biblical story of God’s love for the world, leading to his redeeming the world through Jesus Christ. This narrative begins with Creation and extends through Christ’s return and the New Creation, including the resurrection into a new heaven and a new earth. All the events of our world need to be viewed in the context of that overarching narrative.
This approach means that we ought to look beyond just the facts of an event. For example, when we hear stories about refugees coming to America from Afghanistan, we can ask what Jesus is doing with these people. We can also ask how being a refugee fits into the narrative of God’s love for all people and his desire to draw them into relationship with himself. We can further ask how we can participate in what Jesus is doing and advance God’s mission of redemption.
We are not used to thinking this way about the news. Often, we simply react with an emotional approval or disapproval of what we hear or read about. As Christians, we are called to go deeper, to think and pray over what is happening in the world. That means we can give our attention in this way to far fewer news stories – which is a good thing (as Part 1 proposes)!
Looking at the news from the perspective of what Jesus is doing in the world and the narrative of God’s creation and redemption puts the news in a different perspective. It helps us not get consumed by trivia and discern the importance of various events in relation to our connection with the Lord of the Universe and in light of the Christian hope for resurrection and the New Creation.
One cautionary note here is to be humble and wary about applying biblical prophecy to current events. Prophecy about the future is part of the biblical narrative and can help us discern meaning in contemporary situations. However, interpreting prophecy is notoriously difficult and uncertain. Most biblical prophecies only make sense in hindsight. They are meant not so much to guide us through situations as to provide assurance after the fact that God was working in and through what took place. (Witness the fact that few in Jesus’ time understood he was fulfilling biblical prophecy until after his resurrection – not even his closest disciples or the most educated religious leaders of the day.)
It is well understood that there is a variety of understandings about what will happen in the “end times.” Will there be a “rapture” of believers out of the world or not? If so, when in that series of events will it occur? Will there be a 1,000-year millennium of earthly life under Christ’s rule before the final conflict with evil? When will the end of the world and Christ’s return happen? Throughout history, Christians have disagreed over the answers to these questions.
Therefore, we should be reluctant to impose our particular understanding of biblical prophecy on the daily news. When we propose possible connections, we should be tentative and humble about doing so. We will only know for sure the meaning of events in their aftermath.
Helpful Practices
One way we can nurture this Christian alternative to the world’s news filters is to observe the Church’s liturgical year, suggests Bilbro. The two cycles, Advent – Christmas – Epiphany and Lent – Easter – Pentecost, recount the Bible’s narrative of God’s redemptive love every single year. Observing these cycles helps ground us in the biblical narrative and continually reminds us to look for what God is doing in the world today as an outworking of that narrative. We need that continual reminder of the big picture, and the liturgical year reinforces the narrative using selected Scriptures and themes, colors, music, artwork, and traditions that retell the story in new and multisensory ways.
Bilbro also suggests that we cultivate a greater appreciation for the arts, which focus not on day-to-day happenings, but whose meaning transcends time. The depictions of paintings, music, drama, dance, and other arts connect more deeply with the timeless human condition and how God addresses our humanity through his Son, Jesus Christ. Even when those arts are not overtly Christian, we can discern Christ’s message in and through them.
Finally, Bilbro reminds us to ask the Henry Blackaby question: Where and how is God working in our world today, and how can I join him in his work? I remember when the news came that the Berlin wall was coming down and the Soviet Union was changing dramatically. Those changes opened a great opportunity for the rejuvenation of the Protestant churches in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Bibles were once again in high demand. Evangelism was once again possible at a level much greater than before. Many denominations and parachurch groups jumped on this opportunity (including United Methodism) to replant or nurture the roots of long-dormant churches.
We can see how the events of today present opportunities for ministry and find their meaning as part of the overarching narrative of God’s redemptive love in Jesus Christ. That is a far healthier perspective than obsessing over the latest antics of the celebrity of the moment or the partisan machinations of our favorite political nemesis.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Feb 15, 2022 | Front Page News, Home Page Hero Slider
By Thomas Lambrecht – In a series of six decisions handed down this week, the Judicial Council has brought greater clarity to the disaffiliation process enacted by the 2019 General Conference. Under that new ¶ 2553, local churches may vote to withdraw from The United Methodist Church by satisfying the following conditions:
- Payment of the 12 months’ apportionments prior to the disaffiliation date, plus an additional 12 months’ apportionments
- Payment of the local church’s pension withdrawal liability (the local church’s share of the annual conference’s unfunded pension liability), which varies in amount from one annual conference to another
- Vote of approval by a two-thirds majority of the professing members of the local church present at a church conference
- Vote of approval by a simple majority of the annual conference
By following these steps, a local church can withdraw from The United Methodist Church while retaining its buildings and property, being released from the Trust Clause. This process expires December 31, 2023, and cannot be used after that date (unless General Conference extends it).
Some annual conferences have added requirements to the above steps or otherwise encountered glitches with the process, which then prompted challenges to the Judicial Council for rulings. Those cases have now been decided in Judicial Council Decisions 1420 through 1425. Some bishops and annual conferences have been stalling the disaffiliation process while waiting for the clarity these rulings provide. Additional information may be found in this United Methodist News Service article.
Annual Conference Approval
Two of the current decisions deal with situations where annual conference approval was in question. In the aftermath of the 2019 General Conference that enacted ¶ 2553, the Judicial Council ruled in Decision 1379, “[T]he final decision concerning exiting local churches belongs to the annual conference as part of its ‘reserved rights.’” Although not in the language of ¶ 2553, the Judicial Council ruled that annual conferences must approve the disaffiliation of any local congregation by a simple majority vote.
The Alabama-West Florida Conference (Decision 1421) questioned why a local church was allowed to disaffiliate with its property prior to an annual conference vote of approval. Judicial Council ruled this was “unlawful.” However, since the property had already been deeded to the local church by the annual conference, “as a matter of Florida property law, the train has left the station, and we lack any jurisdiction to entertain challenges to the validity of the deed.”
In the North Georgia Annual Conference (Decision 1420), a lay member asked, “Since the Annual Conference must approve the final act of disaffiliation, can the Annual Conference not therefore set some of the conditions in the agreement when they do not conflict with 2553?” Judicial Council ruled that under ¶ 2553.4, “the terms and conditions for that disaffiliation shall be established by the board of trustees of the applicable annual conference, with the advice of the cabinet, the annual conference treasurer, the annual conference benefits officer, the director of connectional ministries, and the annual conference chancellor.” Since the trustees set those terms and conditions in negotiation with the disaffiliating local church, “The ratification of a disaffiliation agreement is completed by a vote up or down by the members of an annual conference but does not include the right to amend it.” Of course, the annual conference does have the authority to set policies for all disaffiliating local churches to meet. That leads us to the next series of decisions.
Annual Conference Authority
The bottom line of the Judicial Council rulings is that the annual conference has the authority to add additional requirements to the disaffiliation process for local churches. The New England Conference (Decision 1425) requires an extensive process of consultation by local churches prior to any decision to disaffiliate. The process has to last a minimum of eight months and include a study of the ministry impact of the church in its community and the feedback on the impact of disaffiliation by both community members and annual conference officials. This long and onerous process seems designed to discourage churches from disaffiliating. Due to the expiration date of ¶ 2553, churches in New England would have to begin the discernment process by the end of August 2022 in order to complete the process and obtain annual conference approval in 2023 before the paragraph expires.
Other annual conferences added financial requirements over and above what ¶ 2553 demands. The Arkansas Annual Conference (Decision 1424) requires repayment of any grants from the annual conference to the disaffiliating local church in the previous ten years. A recent statement by Bishop Farr of the Missouri Annual Conference affirms that a third year of apportionments must be paid to that annual conference. At least two other annual conferences require disaffiliating churches to pay the annual conference a percentage of the appraised value of their property.
In Decision 1425, the Judicial Council quoted provisions in ¶¶ 2553 and 1504.23 that “clearly suggest that the disaffiliation process established by the General Conference constitutes minimum standards, which do not preclude additional procedures and standard terms created by annual conferences, provided that the latter do not negate or violate the former.” In other words, the Judicial Council has ruled that annual conferences can impose whatever additional requirements they want on disaffiliating churches, as long as those requirements do not contradict what is in the steps listed at the top of this article.
Gracious or Punitive?
The potential result of this series of decisions is that annual conferences could impose onerous requirements on local churches seeking to disaffiliate. In some annual conferences, the pension withdrawal liability alone makes it prohibitive for most local churches to consider disaffiliation. That number could range anywhere from four to ten times the church’s annual apportionment. (Recent stock market growth has reduced the liability for many annual conferences.) Requiring additional apportionments, the repayment of grants up to ten years old, or the payment of a percentage of the property value only make disaffiliation under ¶ 2553 even more impossible for cash-strapped local churches.
Many bishops and annual conference leaders say they support treating traditionalists graciously in the process of separation. Some have said they want to ensure local churches can make the decision of where to affiliate that best meets the needs of that local church and its ministry. Some progressives and centrists have even displayed frustration that traditionalists do not begin separating now, rather than waiting for General Conference.
The requirements for leaving the denomination explained above demonstrate why, according to UM News Service, only 130 (out of 31,000) local churches have disaffiliated over the past two years. If UM leaders want to be gracious, it is in their power to do so by refraining from adding onerous requirements to the disaffiliation process. Actions speak louder than words.
The blank check the Judicial Council has given annual conferences to impose requirements and demand additional payments from departing congregations demonstrates even more vividly why the Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace through Separation is needed. Under the Protocol, all payments by the local church go away. The local church is required to pay nothing to the annual conference, and its pension liability is assumed by the new denomination. In exchange for leaving behind hundreds of millions of dollars of general church assets, local churches are allowed to keep the buildings and properties that, in most cases, they paid for themselves. If progressives and centrists truly want a gracious resolution of our denominational conflict, the answer is to hold a General Conference and pass the Protocol.
If the Protocol is not enacted soon, in those annual conferences where additional onerous requirements are part of the disaffiliation process, some local churches may be better off walking away from their buildings and property and starting over. No amount of property is worth compromising the integrity of our Christian witness. For the first several centuries of the Church’s explosive growth, there were no church buildings at all. If we truly want to recapture the spirit and fervor of the New Testament Church, we should not allow ourselves to be unduly hindered by the need to maintain buildings and property, even though they can certainly be an asset to a church’s ministry. While it is painful to surrender buildings and cemeteries to which we have a deeply heartfelt attachment, our friends in the Episcopal Church who had to relinquish their buildings to start the Anglican Church in North America testify to the freedom that can come in focusing on new vehicles of ministry. In many rural communities in Africa, the church meets under a tree or in a community building. We may need to be similarly creative and adaptable.
I do not understand why some bishops and annual conferences think they can coerce people into remaining in The United Methodist Church through expensive and onerous disaffiliation requirements. Taking a punitive or heavy-handed approach only drives people away from the UM Church – it is not winsome. Local congregations may be prevented or discouraged from withdrawing with their buildings, but that does not foster loyalty among the lay members of the church. Those lay members can easily walk out the door and down the street to another church or abandon the institutional church altogether. (Many have done so in recent years.) Coercive leadership just accelerates the process of “dechurchification.”
These Judicial Council decisions give bishops and annual conferences the opportunity to demonstrate grace in the midst of separation and conflict. They can move forward with the Protocol and refrain from onerous and expensive disaffiliation processes. Will they pass the test?
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News. Photo: Shutterstock.
by Steve | Feb 4, 2022 | In the News
Christians and the News Media (part 1) – By Thomas Lambrecht
I was trained in seminary under the slogan that we need to “preach with the Bible in one hand and the newspaper in the other.” In other words, it is important to relate biblical faith to the everyday lives and happenings of the people in our churches.
Some preach only the Bible, leaving the message hanging in midair, disconnected from practical, daily reality. Others preach only the newspaper, focusing almost exclusively on the events of the day and pontificating on how a Christian ought to react to those events. How do we responsibly connect biblical teaching and theology with the experiences of our world?
In the last decade, the situation has become much more complicated and harmful, with the proliferation of news sources available on the Internet. Many of these sources, whether established news networks or random individuals who post their thoughts for the world to see, no longer pretend to be objective sources of news, but end up injecting so much political opinion in their reporting that it ceases to be objective. We even have news sources offering conflicting stories and contradictory “facts.” How are we to discern what is true? What implications do these conflicting perspectives have for how we are to live our lives as disciples of Jesus Christ?
Christian author and editor, Dr. Jeffrey Bilbro, has just come out with a new book addressing the fraught relationship that Christians can have with the news media. Reading the Times: A Literary and Theological Inquiry into the News offers a biblically-influenced way to think about how we consume the news.
As we begin this new year, perhaps some have resolved to do better in how we pay attention to the news and how we interact with social media. I would like to highlight a few thoughts from Bilbro’s book to help guide our thinking in this area.
To What Do We Pay Attention?
Bilbro begins by surfacing the problem of information overload. We are bombarded with thousands of messages every day, whether Facebook posts, Twitter threads, TV news stories, reality shows, and more. Some information is important: a storm is moving into the area tomorrow, the president is proposing a new program to deal with poverty, the latest wisdom on adjusting to the Covid pandemic. Other information is trivial: cat videos, a new store opening downtown, what my best friend is having for lunch.
He warns that paying attention equally to all these various pieces of information can harden our minds and hearts. We begin to not care about any of the things we hear or read because it is too much for us to care about. Nearly every day, I read about a shooting that has taken place in the Houston area. (With a population of 6 million people, that is not surprising.) Paying attention to all of those reports, I may soon begin to think daily shootings are normal and expected, not something I should care about. Perhaps on the order of another traffic backup on the daily commute home.
Bilbro warns that this hardening of the mind and heart (what he calls “macadamization,” like paving an asphalt road) can be dangerous to our spiritual and emotional health. The hardening of our hearts and minds prevents us from caring about the things God cares about and wants us to care about. We become inured to situations that we ought to engage in helping to find solutions. We find it harder to hear God’s voice and feel his heart for the world.
Antidotes to Hardening
Bilbro offers several ways to counteract the hardening effect of the news.
Most obviously, we can reduce the time spent watching or reading the news. I know some people who spend 8-10 hours a day watching a news channel or surfing Twitter. There is no way that amount of exposure is healthy for our minds or spirits. One helpful rule of thumb might be to spend no more time on the news media than we spend reading the Bible, praying, or reading devotional books. It can help us get our lives back in balance.
A second solution is to spend more time contemplating and thinking about the things we read. Reading or listening to one news story or opinion after another tends to make us glaze over. Instead, we can put our roots down deeper into selected issues that we are passionate about. If ending human trafficking is our passion, we can spend more time on news related to that and less time on other social problems. We can spend time learning about that passion and engaging in activity addressing it. Focusing on a few key issues helps combat the hardening that comes from dabbling in many issues.
That leads to a third option, which is to pay attention to stories that directly affect me or enable me to get involved. I can do something about human trafficking. I can help people whose town was wiped out by a tornado or a wildfire. Learning how a politician views issues important to me will affect how I vote in the next election. Caring enough about something to take action in response combats the hardening that deadens our conscience and our capacity to love.
A fourth suggestion is to focus on meaty issues, rather than fluff. C.S. Lewis recommended that, after reading a new book, one should read an old (classic) book before reading the next new one. Read things that have stood the test of time. Bilbro supplements that advice by saying, “we ought to spend at least one – and probably more like two or three – minutes reading books or meaty essays for every minute we spend scrolling through a news feed, listening to the radio, or surfing around the Internet checking in on the latest news. These longer essays and older books act as a kind of ballast, helping us better discern which new headlines are actually significant.”
Bilbro’s final suggestion to combat hardening of the mind and heart is to learn a craft or a hobby. Such things as cooking meals, building wooden furniture, growing a garden, playing piano, or knitting a sweater teach us to focus on everyday reality and keep us grounded. They may even open space and inclination for more contemplation, thinking about reality and how things relate to our spiritual life in Christ. I remember as a child practicing piano and stopping every now and then for a moment of silence to think about the music and what I was learning. Cultivating a craft or hobby helps make us more susceptible to God’s Spirit moving and working in our lives.
When I was a child, the adults around me often talked about “hardening of the arteries,” a disease that afflicted many of their friends and relatives. The hardening of the arteries hinders the flow of blood to the body and contributes to the decay of various bodily organs.
In the same way, the hardening of our minds and hearts due to information overload can hinder the flow of the Holy Spirit and the working of God in our lives. We can lose our sensitivity to spiritual things and our ability to care about others. It is important for us to take steps to guard and preserve our spiritual sensitivity and create a climate in our lives where the Lord can do his transforming work.
Our next blog on this topic will explore how our consumption of the news affects our perception of time.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Jan 26, 2022 | In the News
Shutterstock
By Rob Renfroe
Covid vaccination for United Methodists in the United States is an issue of choice – not of convenience. Inoculation availability in the U.S. is widespread and accessible. This is not the case for all United Methodists in other countries. While it can be hard for urban and travel-oriented United Methodist to comprehend, some General Conference delegates live hundreds of miles away from locations where vaccinations are offered by their governments and health agencies. Those in rural sections of some countries have limited travel options (no private cars, buses and planes run irregular and infrequent schedules, dirt roads are sometimes impassable, and costs are prohibitive for the average person). This creates extraordinary hardship when it comes to reaching destinations to get vaccines.
To attend General Conference, international delegates must meet the government requirements for entry to the United States, which include a WHO-approved Covid vaccination. While the vaccine is provided free of charge for delegates by their home nation, the travel and lodging expenses are not. Neither are they provided by The United Methodist Church.
Traditionalists established a freewill, non-obligatory program to help defray the travel costs for rural General Conference delegates in other countries to receive the vaccine. The program covers travel, hotel stays, and food while delegates receive the vaccine at government health facilities.
Unfortunately, this has suddenly become a hot-button controversy, instead of a widely supported mission. The reaction of progressives and institutionalists to this traditionalist effort to help international General Conference delegates receive vaccinations for Covid-19 is as predictable as it is sad.
The Executive Committee of the Council of Bishops, a body of international bishops, unnamed members of the Commission on General Conference, and progressive bloggers report being “appalled” and “outraged” at the “harm” we are doing and have charged us with colonialism and “jeopardizing the integrity of General Conference.” Our motives are reported to be perverse and cynical, though none of our critics has spoken with us about why we began this initiative. These attacks are the same charges the same people have levelled against us whenever we have collaborated with international delegates on issues where we hold common beliefs.
First, how did we arrive here? Then, let’s ask and answer who is truly guilty of a colonialist mindset – traditionalists or progressives and institutionalists?
I know how the vaccine initiative came about because I was on the phone call when it was developed. The conversation really was this simple. “For the good of the church, General Conference needs to meet in 2022 and pass the Protocol.” “What’s likely to prevent that from happening?” “If the international delegates are not able to attend in representative numbers, the Commission on General Conference could understandably decide GC should be postponed.” “How can we help with that?” “One African bishop and a number of African delegates have asked for help in getting vaccinated so they can attend.” “Are the General Board of Global Ministries, the Commission on the General Conference, or the Council of Bishops doing anything to help make that happen?” “No. Representatives of the Council of Bishops have told us there are no such plans from official church agencies to help delegates get vaccinated.” “Let’s offer to provide travel expenses for those delegates who want to get the vaccine.” “Shouldn’t we ask other groups to join us so it’s clear we don’t have an ulterior motive?” “Yes, in addition to inviting the General Board of Global Ministries, let’s ask progressive and centrist caucus groups to help fund the effort.” (By the way, we did ask those groups to join the effort and they declined.) “It’s going to be expensive.” “Sure, but our people are counting on us to get the Protocol passed and stop the harm being done to the church.” “We will have to move quickly because the Commission on the General Conference might make a decision on postponing General Conference as early as January. We need to demonstrate that nearly all delegates can get vaccinated in order to attend General Conference.” “OK, our decade of partnering with international delegates has created a good network for getting the word out and helping delegates become vaccinated. Let’s do it whether or not we have to pay for it all.”
Thus, the plan was created. The Wesleyan Covenant Association (WCA), Good News, the Confessing Movement, and UM Action were very transparent about what we were doing by informing key episcopal leaders of our plans, by asking other groups to join us before the plan was put into action, and later when we announced to the general church what we were doing. Nothing was hidden. Nothing was nefarious. Nothing was done that deserved to be described as dark and malevolent. Even if some might disagree with our efforts, neither our actions nor our motives warranted outright condemnation from our brothers and sisters in Christ. Such is the world we live in. Evidently, such is the church we live in.
So, what about the charge of colonialism? And who has actually acted in ways that could be described by that ugly term?
Was it a traditionalist bishop or a progressive bishop who wrote the following after General Conference 2012? “Delegates from Africa once again proclaimed that their anti-homosexual stand was what U.S. missionaries taught them. I sat there wondering when our African delegates will grow up. It has been 200 years since U.S. Methodist missionaries began their work of evangelization on the continent of Africa; long enough for African Methodists to do their own thinking about this concern and others.” It was not a traditionalist, but progressive Bishop Minerva Carcano who disrespected an entire continent. How did the Council of Bishops, the Commission on General Conference, and progressive bloggers who champion the dignity and inclusion of persons of color respond? Were they outraged and appalled? Did they condemn her colonialist assertion that if Africans do not share her opinions they are unthinking and ignorant? No. Not one of them said a public word taking her to task.
Who withdrew their financial support from Moscow Seminary after General Conference 2019? When the Russian delegates spoke often and passionately on the conference floor, defending a traditional understanding of sexual ethics, was it traditionalists, or progressives and centrists who sent the message: there will be no more support for your theological training until you begin to teach what our liberal western seminaries teach? It was not traditionalists, but a large centrist/progressive local church that has promoted the UM Church as a “big tent,” welcoming all. Several church ministries in Africa suffered a similar fate after GC 2019, prompting the WCA to start a Central Conference Ministry Fund to help projects that lost financial support from centrists and progressives. Did any group that has condemned us for providing funds for vaccinations speak out against removing funds from those who are doing the work of Christ in Russia and Africa? Of course not.
Who is currently floating plans to regionalize the church? Who is proposing to create a structure that would keep international delegates from voting on the sexual ethics and the ordination standards that Methodists in the United States would be expected to follow? Who is putting into reality Mainstream UMC executive director Mark Holland’s idea that, “It is impossible to share a governance structure with a global church which is both fundamentally disconnected from and disapproving of the culture of the United States. This new reality gives us 5 reasons why we should consider some version of an autonomous U.S. church.”
Disapprove of the culture of a western, post-modern, progressive nation with a liberalized sexual ethic (and a church that approves of its values), and a leading centrist spokesperson believes the solution is a U.S. church that is independent from the influence of those unenlightened persons who have not yet accepted the superiority of the American way. And that is the church centrists and progressives now envision and are proposing.
Who wants to diminish the influence of international delegates in the affairs of their denomination because they do not see them as equal partners in determining the will of God? It’s not traditionalists, but progressives and centrists who see international delegates as obstacles to enacting what liberals in this country have decided is God’s will. It’s they, not traditionalists, who see Africans and Filipinos as “work-arounds” to be marginalized, not as brothers and sisters worthy of respect and of fully participating in the process of holy conferencing.
By contrast, who is currently preparing for a denomination in which whites may very well be in the minority? In fact, a denomination in which Americans may be in the minority? Not the progressives and the centrists who plan to remain in the present UM Church in the United States, which is over 90 percent white and which will remain close to that when traditionalists leave.
The Global Methodist Church will be very different. Most of Africa will probably go with the GM Church and a good part of the Philippines may join, as well. International members and persons of color are likely to be in the majority of the new denomination. We who are creating the GM Church know that and we welcome it.
And who believes that international delegates are so lacking in conviction and virtue that their votes can be bought by the promise of a vaccine? That’s one of the charges made against our efforts: we’re attempting to buy votes. Really? By offering to help delegates become vaccinated when we have not made our assistance dependent on anyone telling us how he or she will vote? When we will have no way of knowing how anyone voted when General Conference is over? That’s our plan for influencing the outcome of General Conference? We’re spending $135,000 to buy votes when even Mark Holland agrees that 80% of the international delegates and at least 90% of the Africans voted for the traditional plan in 2019? The charge that traditionalists are buying votes is ludicrous.
But more egregious is the insinuation that the integrity of Africans, Filipinos, and others is for sale to the highest bidder. Those of us who have worked with and who are friends with international delegates know them to be persons of integrity and principle. And it angers and disgusts me when progressives insinuate otherwise. I wait for the Executive Committee of the Council of Bishops, members of the Commission on General Conference, and progressive and centrist leaders to join me in expressing how appalled and outraged they are by these attacks on the integrity of our brothers and sisters.
So, who looks down upon and diminishes delegates living outside of the US, most of them persons of color and poor? Who has demeaned their intellect, their education, and their virtue? Who has defunded them for holding to the positions the UM Church has held since its inception? Who is creating a church that will diminish their influence in the future?
I guess a simpler way of asking those questions is: Who is guilty of a colonialist mindset? Not those who have treated international delegates as equal partners and who are grateful for their influence and who are creating a denomination where their strength will be even greater. Just maybe it’s the group that, for years, has thought it a useful tactic to project their own failures and prejudices onto others. That would include many institutionalists, progressives, centrists, and bishops. And just maybe the next time they decide to be appalled, aghast, and outraged, they should begin with the log in their own eye. That would certainly give them more credibility than they now possess when they condemn others.
Rob Renfroe is a United Methodist clergyperson and the president of Good News.
by Steve | Jan 24, 2022 | In the News
Shutterstock
By Thomas Lambrecht
There is a very old saying, “No good deed goes unpunished.” It seems that is the case regarding the vaccine initiative promoted by the Renewal and Reform Coalition. Led by the Wesleyan Covenant Association, Good News, the Confessing Movement, and UMAction have committed a total of $135,000 to provide access to Covid vaccines for non-U.S. delegates. The U.S. government currently requires all persons entering the U.S. to be fully vaccinated against Covid. In an effort to remove one of the barriers to holding an in-person General Conference as scheduled in August-September 2022, the Coalition spearheaded an effort to ensure that all delegates could get vaccinated if they desired to do so.
Now, three non-U.S. bishops have issued a statement “deploring” the initiative, calling it “brazen interference in the affairs of The United Methodist Church in Africa.” They believe that “forming a new denomination means leaving a trail of destruction” and “pits us against each other.” Bishops Ruckert (Germany), Nhiwatiwa (Zimbabwe), and Juan (The Philippines) issued the statement. Unnamed “leaders” of the General Commission on the General Conference piled on with their own anonymous criticism of the initiative in a UM News Service article.
Before addressing the leaders’ specific complaints, one must note the over-the-top hyperbolic language used. One would think that the vaccine initiative threatened the existence of human civilization! There are many things to be appalled at in our world today, from ongoing civil wars to the potential invasion of Ukraine, from the economic hardships posed by the pandemic to the millions of casualties of that same pandemic, and the list could go on. It would seem that an initiative to vaccinate 100-200 UM delegates in rural Africa would not rise to that same level of threat.
It appears the three bishops’ main complaint is that the Coalition’s vaccine initiative smacks of “colonialism.” They state, “The unfortunate thing about the entire process by WCA is that it has all the marks of colonialism which our countries went through in [sic] some years ago.” The bishops never define what the “marks of colonialism” are, so it is difficult to determine whether the WCA/Coalition is guilty. Rather, it appears any action taken by Americans that some progressive leaders do not like can be labeled “colonialism” in an effort to besmirch the motives and actions of those Americans. It has become a knee-jerk reaction of some liberals to actions they disagree with, the charge having no real substance, but the powerful effect of stigmatizing those labeled as “colonialists.”
The bishops protest, “One would have thought that our friends and partners in the WCA would have taken some modest time to consult with the church leaders in the Central Conferences so that we move together in how to implement such a cause.” However, the initiative was taken in response to requests from African delegates and church leaders there, who realized that in some areas of Africa, delegates would be unable to be vaccinated, jeopardizing the possibility of their participation in General Conference. African delegates and leaders identified where the need for the initiative exists and are themselves administering the funds, with the normal accountability process in place to ensure the funds are spent with integrity for the purpose for which they were given.
Colonialism disempowers those who are its victims. Throughout the last ten years, the Renewal and Reform Coalition has worked together with African leaders in the Africa Initiative to empower Africans. Where barriers to their full participation have stood in their way, we have sought to work with them to remove those barriers. Whether it has been providing resources or training, working together to elect Africans to general church leadership positions, or enabling alternate delegates to attend General Conference, the Coalition has sought to amplify the voices and participation of Africans, as well as Filipinos and Eastern Europeans, who in the past have been marginalized by some general church processes. Their participation is a matter of justice: their voices must be heard as the church considers very important matters impacting their local churches. What the Coalition has done is the very opposite of colonialism. Providing vaccine access so African delegates can participate in General Conference is just another way in which disadvantaged voices can be brought forward.
It is interesting that none of the three bishops serve in annual conferences where the delegates have trouble obtaining the vaccine. Rather than pledge to assist in vaccination efforts for the families, congregations, or communities associated with United Methodist delegates, they simply condemn this modest effort. It is easy to criticize a program that does not benefit one’s own delegates.
The three bishops’ other main complaint is that the vaccine initiative is an attempt to unduly influence African delegates to vote with traditionalists at General Conference. The bishops declare, “When individual interest groups begin to offer benefits to delegates, they jeopardize the integrity of General Conference.” According to the article, “Commission leaders also object to ‘The appearance of perceived or real influence of the vote of General Conference delegates on any number of matters under consideration.’” This tired argument has been trotted out before and is insulting to non-U.S. delegates. It seems some UM leaders think non-U.S. delegates cannot think for themselves or stand on their own convictions. They believe that African delegates’ votes can be “bought” by traditionalists, notwithstanding the fact that 95 percent of African United Methodists are already traditionalists and do not need their vote to be “bought” in order to agree with U.S. traditionalists.
A third complaint raised by the bishops as well as the anonymous Commission leaders declares that the vaccine initiative (in the words of the bishops) “is not an expression of vaccine equity.” They continue, “We are dismayed that the WCA would choose to help provide vaccines to only a few people and not the community as whole [sic].” The Commission leaders say, “As is apparent through the data on the current omicron variant, a focus on vaccinating one member of a family, household, workplace, church or other group while not vaccinating the other members of the group would not ensure that the vaccinated individual would have the most protection from the virus.”
We have become painfully aware that vaccination does not protect people from becoming infected. More and more vaccinated and even boosted individuals are suffering bouts of Covid. However, the vaccine does protect against serious illness and death in most cases. Therefore, vaccinating any person offers protection from serious illness and death, whether or not other members of their family or group are vaccinated.
This is a classic case of the perfect being the enemy of the good. The perfect outcome would be to vaccinate every single person in the world who desires it. Does that mean that if we cannot vaccinate every single person, we should vaccinate no one? Vaccinating some is better than vaccinating none. Sir Robert Alexander Watson Watt, British pioneer of radar technology, is quoted as saying, “Give them the third best to go on with; the second best comes too late, the best never comes.” In other words, if we wait for the perfect solution, we will never accomplish anything. Just because we cannot offer “the most protection from the virus” does not mean we should offer no protection from the virus.
Vaccinating delegates so an in-person General Conference can take place does not contradict or interfere with the goal of vaccine equity, sharing more of the vaccine to the countries who can least afford it. The two initiatives have different purposes that harmonize, rather than conflict. In some cases, vaccinating a village leader who happens to be a delegate can act as a positive example for others to obtain the vaccine. The members of the Coalition wholeheartedly support vaccine equity and the GBGM “Love Beyond Borders” Advance. Both initiatives are worthy of support, and championing one does not mean one cannot also back the other. This would be a false dichotomy.
The unidentified Commission leaders put forward a few other criticisms:
- “The unofficial advocacy group’s collection of private medical information.” Presumably, this means finding out the vaccination status of individual delegates. Such information is necessary to help delegates obtain visas. Knowing the vaccination status of the delegates is also a primary piece of information for the Commission in determining whether to hold an in-person General Conference. Such information is not shared, except in the aggregate. Knowing the overall vaccination status of delegations helps make the case that lack of vaccination is not a barrier to an in-person General Conference. Besides that, any delegate coming to the U.S. will have been vaccinated, so that will already be publicly known by virtue of their attending General Conference.
- “Fundraising and distribution of resources are not bound by The United Methodist Church’s auditing requirements.” As religious non-profits, the members of the Coalition are bound by universal auditing requirements and at least two of the organizations annually obtain a professional audit of their books governed by Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). In addition, Good News and the WCA are members of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA), which holds its members to the highest standards of financial and governance integrity.
- “Interference and possible disruption in the medical treatment plans of existing public health departments and ministries.” The vaccinations are given free by government public health authorities. The Coalition’s vaccine initiative only pays for transportation, food, and lodging to enable persons to receive the vaccine. Delegates who receive the vaccine do not preclude or take the place of any other person receiving it. There is no interference or disruption because the delegates attend the vaccine clinics in small numbers.
- “Liability in the case of an adverse medical outcome or developing condition.” It is up to the individual delegate whether they want to be vaccinated. It is a decision between the person and his or her doctor. No liability accrues to those who simply provide transportation to receive the vaccine at the delegate’s request.
Before proceeding with the vaccine initiative, the WCA approached UM leaders to find out if there were plans by official church agencies to enable delegates to secure vaccines. There were not. The Coalition approached GBGM to find out if they were willing to enable delegates to secure vaccines. They did not respond, and their vaccine programs appear to be aimed at building up the general health system of countries, rather than specifically providing vaccines, particularly to delegates. The Coalition approached centrist and progressive caucus groups to invite them to join in this effort in order to make it a “bipartisan” initiative. They have either declined to participate or have yet to respond.
It is the role of leaders to help organizations move forward toward the organization’s goals. So far, the official United Methodist leaders as a whole have failed to help the church get “unstuck” by enabling an in-person General Conference to take place. In the absence of leadership from official bodies, the Coalition took it upon itself to provide that leadership to surmount at least one substantial barrier to holding General Conference. Dwight L. Moody is quoted as saying, “I like my way of doing [evangelism] better than your way of not doing it.” Applied to our current situation, providing some leadership, however imperfect, is preferable to having no leadership.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
