by Steve | Dec 28, 2021 | Magazine Articles, November/December 2021
Mosaic of Father Damien in the Maria Lanakila Catholic Church in Lahaina, Hawaii, established in 1846. Father Damien, who had worshiped there, gave his life to the lepers on Molokai. Photo by Steve Beard.
By Steve Beard –
Looking across the shades of aqua blue water from the northwest coast of Maui, there are two Hawaiian islands seen in the distance. One is Lanai, once home to the largest pineapple plantation in the world. Today, the island is privately owned by billionaire Larry Ellison of Oracle and known for its exclusivity, luxurious accommodations, and spectacular golf course.
The other island is Molokai, known around the world for over a century because of the selfless ministry of Father Damien. From the first time I saw the two sparsely populated islands, Molokai’s tragic and triumphant saga of faith and kindness has held a magnetic appeal.
In 1866, the Kingdom of Hawaii forcibly exiled those suspected of having leprosy (known today as Hansen’s disease) to a small plot of land on Molokai. Called Kalaupapa, the peninsula is surrounded on three sides by the majestic Pacific Ocean and boxed in by a towering 3,600-foot cliff. Father Damien called it a “living graveyard.”
At age 33, Damien unhesitatingly volunteered to be a priest to the rejected and dejected in exile. Ten years previous, he left his native Belgium and spent five months at sea to become a missionary to Hawaii. He was a pious, head-strong, and resourceful priest. To his superiors and fellow priests, going to Molokai was a death wish. Furthermore, the colony had the lawless deterioration of the Lord of the Flies.
“Abandon all hope, ye who enter here” reads the sign above hell in the 14th century poem describing the afterlife in Dante’s Inferno. It also could have been written at the unforgiving shoreline of Molokai for those who had been rounded up and sentenced to a lifetime of misery away from friends, ohana (family), and civilization. When the bishop escorted Damien to the island, he introduced the priest to the 800 exiles as one “who loves you so much that he does not hesitate to become one of you, to live and die with you.” No truer introduction could have been pronounced.
Father Damien was a spiritual first responder. Squalor, pain, and suffering surrounded him. And the smell was putrid. “Many a time in fulfilling my priestly duties at their domiciles I have been obliged, not only to close my nostrils, but to remain outside to breathe fresh air,” he confessed. “As an antidote to counteract the bad smell I got myself accustomed to the use of tobacco.” The aroma of his pipe gave him some relief.
“Picture to yourself a collection of huts with 800 lepers,” he wrote to his brother. “No doctor; in fact, as there is no cure, there seems no place for a doctor’s skill.” What he witnessed and experienced was overwhelming. Despite the horrific circumstances, Damien ate from the same bowl as the afflicted, used his fingers to feed poi to those with no hands, shared his pipe, embraced the ill, and gave last rites to the dying. Although he had been sternly warned against physically touching those of his flock, he did the opposite.
Bodily disfigurement came with the disease. Yet, Damien knew that “they also have a soul redeemed at the price of the precious blood of our Divine Savior,” he once wrote. “He too in his divine love consoled lepers. If I cannot heal them, as he could, at least I can offer them comfort.” With gumption and compassion, he even tried to read medical books to help alleviate pain and suffering. He cleaned and bandaged the ghastly wounds, and was even forced to learn to amputate limbs.
In his acts of mercy, Damien expressed his belief that Christ is present in all our sufferings. He worked tirelessly so that those who had been abandoned knew that God, too, did not turn his back. He looked at the innocent orphans and was confident that they had done nothing to deserve leprosy – countering a prevailing belief among some at the time that it was a divine punishment.
As he held the dying, he demonstrated through his embrace: You have dignity. You have worth. You have intrinsic value.
“With parishioners like his Hawaiians, touch was all-important. With a priest like Damien, in whom belief was unaffectedly incarnate, faith was made physical,” writes historian Gavan Daws in the biography Holy Man (University of Hawaii Press). “To mortify the body, to die to himself, to risk physical leprosy in order to cure moral leprosy – this was to be a good priest. If it meant touching the untouchable, then that was what had to be done. The touch of the priest was the indispensable connection between parishioner and church, sinner and salvation.”
From the outset, he addressed his flock: “We lepers.” Damien faithfully preached, baptized, heard confessions, built caskets (an estimated 1,000), dug graves, and buried the dead with respect. He lived the virtues of aloha to those who had been sequestered to die. Furthermore, without timidity, he hounded the government and religious leaders – much to their irritation – for medical supplies, clothing, food, lumber, and piping to provide fresh water to the colony. He was a tireless advocate for the ostracized and forgotten. “I find my greatest happiness in serving the Lord in his poor and sick children – who are rejected by others,” he wrote.
Despair was an ever-constant and dark storm cloud over Molokai. How could it not be? In addition to his priestly duties and doing everything he could to improve living conditions – including building shelters and blasting rocks to create a dock – he also tried to bring joy and purpose to those who were sent there simply to die. Damien organized choirs, an orchestra, horse races, and baseball games.
In his journal, he reminds himself: “Be severe towards yourself, indulgent toward others. Have scrupulous exactitude for everything regarding God … Remember your three vows by which you are dead to the things of the world. … Remember that God is eternal and work courageously to one day be united with him forever.”
As to be expected, even saints become agitated, depressed, and lonely. Father Damien was no exception. Death was omnipresent. “The only thing that really grows here is the cemetery,” he once wrote. “The pews in the church are somewhat emptier, while in the cemetery there is hardly room left to dig the graves.”
At age 49 – after 13 years on Molokai – he discovered that he had contracted the dreaded disease. By this time, despite a handful of detractors and critics, Father Damien had effectively raised awareness around the globe about the plight of those who suffered from Hansen’s disease. His selfless work found support from warmhearted people of all nationalities, politics, and creeds. Princess Liliuokalani presented Father Damien with a medal as a Knight Commander of the Royal Order of Kalakaua – the highest honor of the royal family in Hawaii.
“I am gently going to my grave,” he wrote shortly before his death, three years after contracting the disease. “It is the will of God, and I thank him very much for letting me die of the same disease and in the same way as my lepers. I am very satisfied and very happy.” He died during Holy Week in 1889. For Father Damien, Easter was celebrated in eternity.
In 1936, when there was word that the humble priest was being considered for sainthood, King Leopold III contacted President Franklin D. Roosevelt to get assistance in exhuming the body of Father Damien from Molokai (then the U.S. Territory of Hawaii) and returning it to his native Belgium. The Hawaiians who knew his complex personality – and saw firsthand the fruit of his energetic and industrious ministry – were devastated.
Decades later, in a much-appreciated move, Pope John Paul II saw to it that the remains of Father Damien’s right hand were returned to his original gravesite on Molokai. It was a fitting tribute to the saint who purposefully held out his hand to the untouchable. 
Steve Beard is the editor of Good News.
by Steve | Dec 28, 2021 | Magazine Articles, November/December 2021
Proceedings of the 2012 General Conference of the United Methodist Church in Tampa, Florida. Photo by Steve Beard.
By Joseph F. DiPaolo –
There’s been lots of speculation about the upcoming General Conference of The United Methodist Church – when it will happen, whether it will happen, what the delegates are likely to do, and what they should do.
This is not surprising. Since 1968 (indeed, since 1792), General Conference is where the buck has always stopped.
Until recently, that is. A big reason we are on the verge of division is because, for the first time since 1792, some folks and groups within the church (including some bishops and even whole annual conferences) have decided that the decisions and policies of General Conference can be ignored or defied. Still, when it comes to legal issues around property, pensions, and liabilities, General Conference has the final word.
But there are even more important reasons why General Conference must meet and soon: to act on the Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace through Separation and end the state of limbo we are all enduring.
For one thing, only General Conference speaks for the whole church. Many voices today are making predictions and pronouncements about the state of the UM Church, about what annual conferences can and cannot do, about what would be just and fair in any division of the church. The problem is that only General Conference – not any bishop, agency executive, or clergy blogger – speaks for the whole church. Only General Conference brings together representatives from every conference across the globe to decide on questions which affect the whole denomination. It is a messy process, to be sure, but the only one which truly gives voice and vote to all the constituent parts of the body.
In addition, only General Conference can create a consistent policy for the whole connection. Did you know that annual conferences have always been able to allow congregations to leave with their property? Even before the disaffiliation clause was added to the Discipline in 2019, annual conferences sometimes suspended the trust clause when a church closed, merged or federated, or simply negotiated to become independent. As a result, individual annual conferences could, if they chose, create their own versions of the Protocol. But this would be a very uneven and uncertain process across the denomination, and likely create inequities depending on the specific culture and leadership of individual conferences. Only General Conference can create a just and fair process that encompasses the whole denomination.
Finally, only General Conference can prevent the church from devolving into bitter conflict and expensive legal battles over property. The bitter polarization of North American culture has infected the culture of the church, and we have seen it play out at annual, jurisdictional, and general conferences. It has not been pretty. But we now have an opportunity to model a different way, even amid our own deep divisions.
Instead of continuing to fight and trying to force each other into complying with our side’s agenda, progressives and traditionalists can choose to bless one another to pursue different visions of ministry in separate institutions. If we cannot agree on “what Jesus would do,” can we at least agree “what Jesus would not do”? – and surely Jesus would not resort to the power of government (enforcing the trust clause) to make people follow and support him. We can choose to minimize the pain and harm of dividing by agreeing to do so amicably and fairly. We can choose to be guided by principles of graciousness, respect, and the golden rule, and preserve some measure of goodwill to allow for post-separation cooperation on areas of common concern.
For those things to happen, we need the General Conference to meet, and to act on the Protocol.
As a member of the Commission on General Conference, I can tell you that we are still working and planning with the expectation that the deferred 2020 General Conference will meet, as announced, next August. Of course, no one knows what international crisis may erupt, or how the ongoing pandemic will evolve – who could have predicted the last year and a half? Both the Commission members and the Commission staff are acutely aware of the importance of having the General Conference meet and getting the church “unstuck” as soon as possible. I can attest to the professionalism and competence of the General Conference staff, which is constantly exploring ways to make General Conference happen. And I can testify that, even with the differences of opinion and theology represented on the Commission, all have worked well together to do our job, which we know is limited to planning and organizing the gathering; it is up to the delegates to deliberate and decide on the issues and policies.
I am hopeful! Many organizations have found ways to “pivot” and adapt these last 18 months in order to conduct business – including a sibling, global denomination, the African Methodist Episcopal Church, which successfully convened a hybrid General Conference this past July. More things are possible today than just six or eight months ago. And of course, all things are possible with God!
Pray for wisdom and discernment for the members and staff of the Commission. Pray that the Lord will soon deliver us from this global plague. And pray that the General Conference will soon meet to resolve the current impasse, adopt the Protocol, and enable a new day to dawn for those of us who follow Christ in the Wesleyan way.
The Rev. Joseph F. DiPaolo is lead pastor at Lancaster First United Methodist Church in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. He is a member of the Wesleyan Covenant Association Global Council and also serves as a member of the UM Church’s Commission on the General Conference. This aricle is reprinted by permission of the Wesleyan Covenant Association.
by Steve | Dec 22, 2021 | Magazine Articles, November/December 2021
The Rev. Rob Renfroe, president of Good News
I do not believe you will find a book in the Bible more relevant to The United Methodist Church than the Epistle of Jude.
Early in his letter Jude writes: “Although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people. For certain individuals have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord” (verses 3-4).
Jude tells his readers he had intended to send them a letter going into depth about our salvation in Christ. But grave reports about matters in the church have compelled him to write a very different letter. The problem? False teachers in the church are denying Christ and promoting immorality.
What are the characteristics of those leading the church astray?
1. They claimed a wrong source of authority. “Yet in the same way these dreamers also defile the flesh, reject authority, and slander celestial beings” (verse 8, emphasis added). What is the basis for their heretical teaching? Their dreams. Their visions. Their personal experiences that tell them we should embrace a truth that is contrary to what Jesus and the apostles taught.
The false teachers Jude described are similar to false teachers and prophets throughout the ages. They say, “God has told me.” Or “the Holy Spirit has revealed something to me.” What they claim to be their personal revelation now trumps what the Scriptures teach.
In our time the phrase is usually, “The Holy Spirit is doing something new.” And false teachers claim to be privy to this revelation in a way the rest of the church is not. No matter that the Scriptures are clear, and the church has taught the same doctrine for 2000 years, and 95 percent of all Christians around the globe still uphold what the church has taught for millennia. A relatively few, “enlightened” Western Christians in a hedonistic, postmodern culture now believe they alone have been chosen to receive and promote a novel doctrine that supersedes what the Scriptures reveal to be God’s will.
Ask them how they know this is God’s revelation and they have a difficult time responding. They just know it. They feel it. It’s obvious, in their minds, that God is doing a new thing that is pleasing to our culture and anathema to the Bible.
I once asked a respected progressive pastor how he could promote what was contrary to the Bible. He was very frank. He told me, “Rob, the church created the Bible. So, we can re-create the Bible.”
And on what basis? Our feelings, our imaginings, our dreams? A belief that this is what all “good, loving people” would teach as the truth if they were God? For those who taught false doctrines in Jude’s day and for false teachers in our own time, yes, a foundation as flimsy as an individualistic conviction that the Bible cannot be right is sufficient to claim that God is revealing new truth.
2. They possessed a wrong Christology. Past cults have taught that Jesus was not truly divine – they esteem him as a moral teacher, a cultural reformer, or a highly-evolved being who realized his God-consciousness. But they do not believe he was God incarnate.
What does Jude say about the false teachers of his time? “(They) deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord” (Jude 4). How exactly they were doing this, we are not told. But in some way, they were diminishing the uniqueness and the Lordship of Jesus. They were making him one of many rather than the One and Only.
Today, what you may hear is “Jesus is my Savior and my way, but there are many ways – all of them valid.” I once asked a UM pastor who was a candidate for bishop if other religious teachers, Buddha and Mohammad, for example, brought the same kind of revelation and truth to their followers that Jesus brings to Christians. Quickly and unashamedly, he responded, “Oh, yes. I tell my students, ‘God is wholesale. Jesus is retail.’” Buddha, Mohammad and Jesus are simply retail outlets for the same wholesale God – just different ways of receiving the same (saving?) truth.
By the way, who were his students? Men and women training to become pastors at the United Methodist seminary where he taught.
A related way the divinity and uniqueness of Jesus is diminished is through implied universalism. This is the belief that everyone will go to heaven and that there is really no need for people to surrender their lives to Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. The lack of urgency around evangelism in our denomination betrays the unspoken understanding of many that faith in Christ is a good thing for those who want it, but it is not necessary for salvation and eternal life.
I wish I could tell you these understandings of Jesus are uncommon within the UM Church. But the truth is this false teaching has been propagated in our seminaries for decades and it has infected many of those who are now serving as our pastors and preaching in our pulpits.
3. They promote a wrong understanding of morality. They pervert the “grace of our God into a license for immorality” (Jude 4). Wrong beliefs will lead to wrong behavior. Deny the authority of the Scriptures and the full divinity of Christ, and you can be sure that a compromised morality will soon follow.
Throughout the ages, there have been three responses to God’s grace. One is legalism – those who sin cannot remain in fellowship with the body of Christ. Another is license (what the false teachers in Jude’s letter were and many in our own time are embracing) – because of grace we are free to live as we desire. God will accept us and affirm whatever behavior we believe is right for us. The third response is liberty – through the work of the Spirit, we become free from the power of sin and begin to live a new life.
True freedom is not the right or the ability to do whatever we desire. True freedom is the power to do whatever we should, including dying to the base desires of the flesh and living a life that pleases God.
Jude told his readers and I tell you: The truth is under siege. It’s being undermined by some in the church. By teachers in the church. And the charge for us is the same that Jude gave to his readers “Contend for the faith once and for all entrusted to the saints” (Jude 3).
The United Methodist Church is divided on the most basic beliefs any church can face. Do we follow the Scriptures? Do we confess Jesus as Savior and Lord, the only begotten Son of God? Do we believe grace leads to license or liberty?
We orthodox Wesleyan Methodists are to know the truth; promote the truth; and, where it is under attack, contend for the truth. For it is the truth that will set us free.
by Steve | Dec 22, 2021 | Front Page News, Home Page Hero Slider, In the News
Mary’s Devoted Heart
By Dick McClain
Growing up, I don’t recall having heard a sermon on Mary, the mother of Jesus. She did get dusted off every December for the Christmas pageant. But apart from her annual appearance reincarnated in the form of a budding young thespian, she hardly existed. Perhaps the folks in my evangelical Protestant circle felt that the Catholics went a little too far.
While I’ve never been accused of tilting toward Rome, somewhere along the line I began to suspect that we were being robbed by our silence about Mary. After all, the woman God chose to become the mother of our Lord just might have something to say to us today.
Which brings up another point. Not only did I not hear much about Mary; I didn’t hear much about any of the women of the Bible. When they were presented, it was only in the context of their being a model for women, never for men. The implication was that the male heroes of the faith – Moses, Joshua, David, Peter, and all the rest – were role models for all Christians, men and women alike. But the female heroes of the Bible – Deborah, Naomi, Ruth, and Priscilla – were only models of Christian womanhood.
I ditched that idea.
All of this leads me to suggest two things. First, Mary’s life is worth studying and emulating. Secondly, she is a good model for my entire family, both male and female.
In the first two chapters of Luke, there are fascinating insights into the quality of Mary’s life and faith. Her godliness was evident in a number of traits that we would do well to pattern.
Faith in God. Who comes to mind when you think of biblical examples of faith? I’ll bet you immediately thought of Abraham. Not a bad pick, considering the fact that he believed some rather unbelievable things God told him. But have you thought about the message Gabriel brought to Mary?
Mary was a teenage girl from a poor family who lived in an obscure village in a tiny nation which itself was under subjection to a foreign power. One day an angel came to her with a message from God.
She had found favor with God; she would give birth to a Son whom she was to name Jesus; her baby would be called the Son of the Most High and would sit on David’s throne forever; his kingdom would never end; and all this was going to happen without her ever having sexual relations with a man.
Now, be honest. Would you have believed that?
The remarkable thing is that Mary did! In fact, her cousin, Elizabeth, greeted her as “She who believed that what the Lord has said to her will be accomplished” (Luke 1:45).
That’s real faith! She was willing to take God at his word, even when what he said didn’t square with anything her experience told her to be true. We too must choose to believe God if we are to be godly people.
A surrendered life. Perhaps you have read Mary’s story, sensed the unparalleled excitement of what she was experiencing, tried to put yourself in her place, and concluded, “Wouldn’t it have been glorious to be Mary!”
But stop and think about it. How could she tell Joseph, to whom she was already legally betrothed? Although they had not yet begun living together, they were considered married and could be separated only through divorce. Don’t you think the prospect of suspicion flashed through her mind? It must have. Under similar circumstances, most of us would have asked the Lord to find someone else to do the job.
But not Mary. Her answer to the angel was a model of submission. “I am the Lord’s servant. May it be to me as you have said” (Luke 1:38).
Why was she so ready to submit? Because she understood herself to be God’s servant. Maybe the reason we are so prone to resist God is that we see him as our servant. We’ve got it backwards. We need to come to see, as Mary did, that God is God and not just some spiritual genie that we hope will magically fulfill our every whim.
A life of unassuming humility. One thing about Mary in those Christmas pageants that always struck me was her willingness to go without complaint to the stable.
Not me! If I had been Mary, I probably would have said, “Listen here, buster! This baby I’m about to have is no ordinary child. He is God’s Son and your King. We deserve better than this!”
In Luke’s version of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said, “Blessed are the poor” (Luke 6:20). Mary was poor. We know that because of the sacrifice she and Joseph offered when they presented Jesus at the temple. Since they fell below the poverty line, they qualified to give a pair of doves or two young pigeons, rather than bringing the customary lamb (see Luke 2:24 and Leviticus 12:8).
I don’t buy into the notion that God loves poor people and hates rich folks, or that the impoverished are constitutionally spiritual, while the wealthy are hopelessly ungodly. But I do know that amidst our affluence we have adopted an inflated sense of our own importance, rights, and prerogatives. Consequently, we have concluded that the world owes us a lot; other people owe us a lot; and God also owes us a lot. We have a bad case of inflated expectations.
The answer is not quitting our jobs and signing up for welfare. But if we are serious about godliness, we, like Mary, must relinquish our rights, surrender our demands, and accept whatever God gives.
Faithfulness in spiritual disciplines. Unlike many people today, Mary didn’t treat spiritual things casually.
When it came time to present Jesus at the temple, Joseph and Mary headed for Jerusalem (Luke 2:22). Only after they “had performed everything according to the Law of the Lord” did they return home (2:39). And when Passover season came, they went up to Jerusalem “every year” (2:41).
The implication is that Mary wasn’t one to shirk her spiritual responsibilities. It’s easy for us to neglect spiritual disciplines. Average annual worship attendance in the United Methodist Church typically limps along at less than half the membership. Many Christians would recoil at the suggestion that we should actually part with 10 percent of our income. I’m reminded of a cartoon that pictured a church sign that read: “The Original Lite Church: Home of the 3 Percent Tithe and the 45 Minute Worship Hour – 50 Percent Less Commitment Required.”
Sincerely godly people don’t neglect the Word or worship, prayer or tithing. They don’t treat spiritual disciplines cavalierly.
Spiritual sensitivity. Read Mary’s song, recorded in Luke 1:46-55. It’s more than magnificent. It is the overflow of a heart that was accustomed to communion with God.
How did Mary come to be so spiritually alert? Luke gives us a clue.
Following the shepherds’ visit, we are told that Mary “treasured up all these things, pondering them in her heart” (2:19). And when Mary and her family returned to Nazareth from their trip to Jerusalem for Passover when Jesus was twelve, we read that she “treasured all these things in her heart” (2:51).
Mary managed to carve time out of her busy life to ponder the deeper significance of what was taking place. She took time to pray, to meditate, and to reflect on what God was doing.
Most of us do not decide one day that we don’t want to be in tune with God. We don’t decide not to pray. We just let the priceless treasure of communion with God slip unnoticed through our fingers.
Spiritual sensitivity is not inherited, it is acquired through spending time with God. To borrow Terry Teykl’s phrase, Mary “prayed the price.” If we want to experience true godliness, we must do the same.
In trusting God, surrendering her life, giving up her rights, and learning to listen to the Spirit, Mary set an example for us all to follow.
Was she a super saint? No. Did she demonstrate sinless perfection? Not likely. But a devoted follower of God? You can be sure of it.
We can be the same.
Dick McClain is the former CEO of The Mission Society (now TMS Global). He is retired in Leadville, Colorado, with his wife Pam. This article originally appeared in Good News in 2003. Art by Kateryna Shadrina (Iconart-gallery.com).
by Steve | Dec 13, 2021 | In the News
Image: Iowa Annual Conference
By Thomas Lambrecht
In the sport of track, races are often set off by the firing of a starter’s gun. Racers who cross the starting line and begin the race before the gun fires are said to have “jumped the gun.”
That is exactly what the Iowa Appointive Cabinet has done by issuing its statement, “Leading Now and Into the Future.” A Frequently Asked Questions document fleshes out some of the details. The statement purports to begin implementing the post-separation United Methodist Church in Iowa before the General Conference has acted to pass the Protocol.
One Church Plan Again
“Leading Now” essentially tries to implement the One Church Plan (which was defeated by the 2019 General Conference) by episcopal fiat. It states, effective January 1, 2022, “pastors will be able to choose which weddings they officiate, as long as it is two consenting adults who have been counseled. Likewise, church leadership, in consultation with their pastors, will be able to determine their own policy regarding weddings.” Thus, despite 50 years of holy conferencing and decision-making by the denomination’s top policy-making body, General Conference, the Iowa cabinet will now explicitly override the definition of marriage in our Book of Discipline and permit what the Discipline bars.
Think about that for a moment. It is one thing to temporarily suspend enforcement of a disciplinary provision in anticipation of a forthcoming General Conference action (as the Protocol invites with its proposal of a moratorium on complaints). It is an entirely different thing to say that the disciplinary provision no longer applies, period.
In a swift rejoinder to an Iowa WCA response statement (linked below), the cabinet justifies the need to actualize this plan now. “The urgency of our response is directly related to organized groups that have made the decision to leave The United Methodist Church and have sought to define the post-separation United Methodist Church. … We strongly object to organizations that are both determined to leave The United Methodist Church and are telling others how we will behave post-separation. We have chosen to articulate a vision of The United Methodist Church that we believe we can live into in Iowa now.”
Those leading into the post-separation reality of The United Methodist Church should feel free to lay out publicly their vision for how that church will operate. Many have chosen to do so. But there is a difference between laying out a vision and actualizing it (or in the cabinet’s words, “living into it now”). Traditionalists are not allowed to live into our vision of the Global Methodist Church until the Protocol passes and that new church is formed. What gives the Iowa leaders the right to “jump the gun” and start living into their vision before receiving the authorization from General Conference to do so?
The answer may be found in a further statement of their rejoinder. “This statement is a matter of conscience for each of us, akin to non-violent resistance to unfair civil laws. We realize that taking this stand may have consequences and we accept those consequences, whatever they may be, openly and freely.” In other words, the Iowa leaders are engaging in ecclesiastical disobedience. They are prioritizing their own understanding of our Methodist faith over the communal discernment of General Conference. Since they hold the power in the Iowa Conference, they are unlikely to experience many adverse consequences personally for their decision. What consequences occur will mostly hurt the ministries and mission of the Iowa Conference. Yet, you can be sure that these same leaders will ensure that any clergy or congregations in Iowa that engage in ecclesiastical disobedience will experience strict consequences.
An Unrepresentative and Unfair Action
This action was taken by the appointive cabinet (the bishop and district superintendents), not by vote of the annual conference. It reflects the view of a small group of leaders, not the view of grassroots Methodism in Iowa. This was done because the leaders became impatient to live out their particular vision of the church, in light of the continued postponement of General Conference. It was also done to “jump the gun” on implementing a post-separation UM Church on January 1, rather than waiting for the annual conference to make that decision next June. The leaders may also have wanted to hurry up and implement their vision before it could be challenged legally before the denomination’s Judicial Council. That challenge cannot happen until annual conference meets in June. The Judicial Council would undoubtedly nullify the decision to negate the Discipline, but could not do so before its November 2022 meetings. That gives the Iowa cabinet 11 months to live into their vision and establish “facts on the ground” to set the course they want Iowa Methodism to take.
“Leading Now” states, “This decision by the Appointive Cabinet grants contextual permissions not for the sake of taking a side, but as a way for us to move through the impasse and invite us all into a way forward together.” Except the statement does not give a way for all Methodists to move forward. It allows those wanting to perform same-sex weddings to move forward with their agenda. But it does not allow traditionalists to move forward with establishing a new expression of Methodism. That can only happen when General Conference meets and passes the Protocol.
“Leading Now” goes on, “This vision provides a home for everyone – whether they consider themselves liberal, evangelical, progressive, traditionalist, middle of the road, conservative, centrist or something else – who wants a home in the remaining Iowa Annual conference of The United Methodist Church.” But there is no “remaining Iowa Annual Conference.” There is only the Iowa Annual Conference of The United Methodist Church, to be governed by the Book of Discipline of the UM Church. The statement betrays their haste to move into a new reality before being given official sanction from the denomination to do so.
If the Iowa Appointive Cabinet truly wanted to move all Methodists into a new future in Iowa, they could have found a way under the Discipline to implement the terms of the Protocol, allowing churches to leave with their property and without payment of apportionments or pension liability. Such a way is available under ¶ 2548.2. Instead, the cabinet felt perfectly fine setting aside explicit provisions of the Discipline to allow same-sex weddings, but is holding churches that want to withdraw and align with a new traditionalist denomination strictly to the provisions of ¶ 2553. That provision requires payment of two years’ apportionments and pension liabilities up front in order for a church to withdraw, a fiscal impossibility for many congregations.
The rejoinder statement linked above declares, “While it was, and continues to be, our desire to facilitate the grace-filled exit of any congregation that is uncomfortable with this vision, matters of property move into the sphere of state laws. While we remain willing to violate this single matter in the Book of Discipline to lead our church, violation of state law regarding property would jeopardize the local congregation and the Iowa Annual Conference.”
With all due respect, this is a bogus claim. State law does not regulate how churches and non-profits can dispose of their property (other than prohibiting conflicts of interest or self-dealing). For many years, annual conferences have negotiated an exit for congregations even before ¶ 2553 was enacted in 2019. There are at least three ways under the Book of Discipline that an annual conference can release a congregation with its property (closure and resale, deeding to another evangelical denomination, and disaffiliation). Only one of those requires the payment of a fixed amount of money to the conference. If the conference wanted to let churches go under the terms of the Protocol, it could do so.
Troubling Theology
Theologically troubling is the premise that the statement is based on. Bishop Laurie Haller’s earlier “Vision 2032” statement about the future declares as one of its founding principles that “relationships are more important than theological convictions.” In other words, traditionalists are expected to renounce or hold in abeyance the theological convictions of 2,000 years of church teaching for the sake of staying “in relationship” with progressives who want to move in a different direction.
That approach certainly does not fit with the apostle Paul’s condemnation of any who would preach “a gospel other than the one we preached to you” (Galatians 1:8). Paul valued the approval of God more than the approval of human beings (vs. 10). Jesus said, “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me” (Matthew 10:37). If even these most intimate family relationships are not as important as maintaining a relationship of love and obedience to Jesus Christ, how can we say that relationships are more important than theological convictions?
Beware Unintended Consequences
This precedent-setting move by the Iowa cabinet creates a general disregard for the church’s teachings, policies, and procedures established by General Conference. If an annual conference is allowed to disregard some disciplinary provisions, why should churches and pastors be held to account for disregarding other provisions? This devolves to a question of power: who has the power to enforce its decisions and who does not? Obviously, the bishop and cabinet hold the power in an annual conference to enforce their decisions through the power of appointment of pastors and of setting the conference’s agenda. The power differential with clergy and congregations means that, in this instance, “might makes right.”
However, the cabinet needs to be careful about opening this can of worms. There are other forms of power, and other ways of exercising power. Unleashing a game of power only leads to conflict, strife, and harm inflicted on all sides.
The Iowa WCA Regional Chapter has issued an excellent response to their cabinet’s action. The Iowa WCA statement declares, “We respectfully call on Bishop Haller and the Cabinet to rescind ‘Leading Now.’ We also urge episcopal colleagues in the North Central Jurisdiction and among the Council of Bishops to strongly encourage Bishop Haller and the Cabinet to withdraw ‘Leading Now.’
“If the document is not rescinded, we are confident faithful local UM churches (traditionalist, centrist, and progressive) in the Iowa Annual Conference will decide they can no longer submit to the authority of leaders who legitimize acts in defiance of our church’s teachings and its time-honored way of discerning God’s will for the whole.”
Local churches and laity have power, too. They have the power of purse strings. They can refuse to fund a bishop and cabinet that has gone off the rails and repudiated United Methodist connectionalism by their unilateral renunciation of the Discipline. And secular courts might be inclined to say that, by this action, the Iowa conference has repudiated its status as a United Methodist conference, breaking the trust clause that holds churches hostage to the whims of a wayward church leadership. Who knows where this road of rule by power could lead?
Peace-loving United Methodists of all stripes should hope that the Iowa Appointive Cabinet rethinks its position. We need to draw back from the brink of confrontation and outright warfare for the sake of the body of Christ. Conflict serves no one and destroys the church.
In the words of the Iowa WCA statement, “We are all disappointed the UM Church has not been able to convene a General Conference and so adopt the Protocol of Reconciliation and Grace through Separation, an amicable and orderly plan of separation widely endorsed by leading Bishops, theologically diverse advocacy groups, and annual conferences. However, disappointment does not entitle Bishop Haller and the Cabinet to make up their own rules in the interim. Again, we call on the Bishop and the Cabinet to rescind ‘Leading Now.’”
