by Steve | May 26, 2021 | Magazine, Magazine Articles, May-June 2021
A lithograph, of unknown origin or date, illustrates a camp meeting popular in the early 1800s.
By Windfield Bevins –
Methodism swept across the American frontier like an uncontrollable prairie fire. That is hardly how we would describe it today. There are great benefits in considering some of the things that led the decline of Methodism.
What lessons can we learn from the past so we don’t repeat them tomorrow?The first warning we can take from the Wesleyan revival is to observe what can happen to any movement over time. Sadly, some movements, as they become institutionalized, also grow more secular, losing the “evangelical” focus that gave them life in the first place. Many denominations that began as transformative movements eventually became institutionalized, leaving behind their original roots. If the cultural values and beliefs that initially helped the movement grow are not passed down to succeeding generations, this institutionalization will lead to the loss of the gospel focus and of disciple-making.
C.S. Lewis warned against this, saying, “There exists in every church something that sooner or later works against the very purpose for which it came into existence. So we must strive very hard, by the grace of God to keep the church focused on the mission that Christ originally gave it.” The cure for this secularization of the revival spirit, as Lewis suggests, is to develop habits and practices that keep us faithful to the original mission of the church: the call to preach the gospel and make disciples.
We see this pattern repeated throughout history. Many of the great revivals of the past began as Spirit-inspired disciple-making movements, yet over time they became secular institutions. For example, consider the history of the modern university.
Many colleges, including state universities in the United States, started out as Christian institutions to train young people for ministry and Christian service. Schools like Harvard (Puritan), William and Mary (Anglican), Yale (Congregational), and Princeton (Presbyterian) were created for Christian higher education. The Great Awakening led to the founding of Princeton, Brown, Rutgers, and Dartmouth in the mid-eighteenth century, and to the single most prolific period of college founding in American history. Over time, however, the revival spirit that founded these institutions was lost, and most of these former Christian colleges and universities became secular universities with little or no religious affiliation.
Institutionalization. Methodism was one of the greatest and longest-lasting discipleship movements in the history of the church. Yet as Methodism continued to grow, Wesley noticed that the movement was following the patterns of institutionalization. He lamented that this was happening, and he felt that a grim fate might befall the Methodists if they ever lost their zeal.
“I am not afraid that the people called Methodists should ever cease to exist either in Europe or America,” Wesley wrote. “But I am afraid, lest they should only exist as a dead sect, having the form of religion without the power. And this undoubtedly will be the case, unless they hold fast the doctrine, spirit, and discipline with which they first set out.”
Sadly, this is exactly what happened to Methodism in the United States. Just one hundred years after the miraculous growth of the movement, there were warning signs of secularization. Today, the United Methodist Church, the descendant of the American Methodist movement, is in rapid decline and on the verge of splitting into factions. What caused this shift, making a large and growing denomination one of the fastest declining?
History teaches us that the church is susceptible to the secularizing tendencies of institutionalization whenever it loses focus on the message and mission of Christ. In The Convergent Church: Missional Worshipers in an Emerging Culture, Alvin Reid and Mark Liederbach observe, “When the church loses, forgets, or fails to emphasize the missional thrust of its purpose … it is a move away from a movement mentality toward what we would describe as institutionalism.”
Whenever movements are transformed into institutional churches, they will begin to reduce the tension they feel with respect to the surrounding culture. There is less emphasis placed on growth and multiplication, and this leads to a loss of growth and the start of a slow decline. This pattern has repeated over and over again throughout the history of the church. And while there are many sociological factors to consider, there are three primary reasons this secularization occurred in the Methodist movement, leading to its decline in North America.
Shift in Preaching. As Methodism became an established church in North America, there was a strong impulse to “keep up” with the more established churches and to become a respectable part of society. Though the movement had grown and multiplied through lay preachers and circuit riders, the days of the traveling preacher on horseback were now replaced by fancy pulpits and robes. According to Methodist historian William Warren Sweet,
“Clergy culture and learning were no longer a monopoly of the Congregationalists, the Presbyterians, and the Episcopalians. Education, refinement, and dignity now characterized the ministry and service of the Methodists.”
This resulted in a shift in the preaching. Clergy moved away from simple messages on sin and salvation to speak about science and politics. Gone were the days of the Methodist camp meeting. Early Methodist preachers had arisen from among the common people, speaking the language of the ordinary man. A generation later, pulpits were filled with clergy who geared their message to a more educated, socially conscious audience.
Over time the pioneering, counter-cultural spirit of the Methodist movement was domesticated. With the rise of educated clergy and increased social status came a further shift away from the original emphasis on holiness and the “methods” of the class meeting. As sociologists Roger Finke and Rodney Stark note, “Their clergy were increasingly willing to condone the pleasures of this world and to de-emphasize sin, hellfire, and damnation; this lenience struck highly responsive cords in an increasingly affluent, influential, and privileged membership. This is, of course, the fundamental dynamic by which sects are transformed into churches, thereby losing the vigor and the high-octane faith that caused them to succeed in the first place.”
Focus on Buildings. One hundred years from its humble beginnings, Methodism in North America had finally arrived. Not only had the Methodists become the largest denomination in the land, they had moved up the social ladder of society and were beginning to attract people of wealth and privilege. They had shifted from meeting in simple, unadorned buildings to constructing large, expensive facilities that rivaled the nicest established church buildings in town. In 1911, a new building for a Methodist congregation in Illinois even began charging $200 for good seats at the church.
These new, fancy buildings were a visible sign that Methodism had moved away from the vision of its founder. Once an upstart sect, it had become one of the established religions of the young nation. Yet while some would see these as positive signs, they were the beginning of the end of the Methodist movement in North America.
Today, you can look at almost any town in North America and find an impressive Methodist church building from this era, yet sadly, most of these have closed or are in the process of closing their doors due to declining membership.
Cutting the Class Meeting. The final nail in the coffin was the demise of the class meeting. From the time of the founding of Methodism, to be called a Methodist meant that you were a member of a class meeting. Yet over time this requirement was lost, and many began to see it as a sign that the movement had begun to falter. In 1856, at the age of seventy-two and in the fifty-third year of his ministry, the famous Methodist circuit rider preacher Peter Cartwright was already lamenting the loss of the class meeting:
“Class meetings have been owned and blessed of God in the Methodist Episcopal Church … For many years we kept them with closed doors, and suffered none to remain in class meeting more than twice or thrice unless they signified a desire to join the Church … Here the hard heart has been tendered, the cold heart warmed with the holy fire; But how sadly are the class meetings neglected in the Methodist Episcopal Church! … Is it any wonder that so many of our members grow cold and careless in religion, and finally backslide? … And now, before God, are not many of our preachers at fault in this matter?”
Reading Cartwright’s words, one can sense the grief of a man who had experienced the exciting energy of the Methodist revival and was now seeing that movement sliding toward institutionalization and into decline.
On my desk is a framed class meeting ticket from 1842 that belonged to a woman named Maria Snyder. Looking at it today, I can’t help but wonder, “What would Maria think of contemporary Methodism?” or “What would John Wesley or Francis Asbury think about the current state of the movement they started?”
Across the Western world, thousands of churches are closing every year. When will we feel grief over the state of our churches? Will a new generation once again heed the call to recover Scriptural Christianity? Might we see another disciple-making revolution spread across our country and around the world?
Winfield Bevins is the director of church planting at Asbury Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky. Over the years he has served as a pastor, professor, and church planter. Some of this content is from WinfieldBevins.com, Marks of a Movement: What the Church Today can Learn from the Wesleyan Revival (Zondervan, 2019).
by Steve | May 26, 2021 | Magazine, Magazine Articles, May-June 2021
Terry Mattingly
By Terry Mattingly –
While working on the 1985 book Habits of the Heart, the late sociologist Robert N. Bellah met “Sheila,” who described her faith in words that researchers have quoted ever since.
“I can’t remember the last time I went to church,” she said. “My faith has carried me a long way. It’s Sheilaism. Just my own little voice.” The goal was to “love yourself and be gentle with yourself. … I think God would want us to take care of each other.”
A decade later, during the so-called “New Age” era, researchers described a similar faith approach with this mantra – “spiritual but not religious.” Then in the 21st Century’s first decade, the Pew Research Center began charting a surge of religiously unaffiliated Americans, describing this cohort in a 2012 report with this newsy label – “nones.”
Do the math. “Nones” were 10 percent of America’s population in 1996, 15 percent in 2006, 20 percent in 2014, and 26 percent in 2019. Obviously, these evolving labels described a growing phenomenon in public and private life, said political scientist Ryan Burge of Eastern Illinois University, author of the new book, The Nones: Where They Came From, Who They Are, and Where They Are going. But hidden under that “nones” umbrella are divisions that deserve attention. For example, the 2018 Cooperative Congressional Election Study found that 5.7 percent of the American population is atheist, 5.7 percent agnostic, and 19.9 percent “nothing in particular.”
“When you say ‘nones’ and all you think about is atheists and agnostics, then you’re not seeing the big picture,” said Burge. “Atheists have a community. Atheists have a belief system. They are highly active when it comes to politics and public institutions. But these ‘nothing in particular’ Americans don’t have any of that. They’re struggling. They’re disconnected from American life in so many ways.”
In his book, Burge stressed that “nothing in particulars are one of the most educationally and economically disadvantaged groups in the United States today.” This is also a growing slice of the population, with one in 20 Americans becoming “NIPs” during the past decade. While Protestants, at 40 percent, are the largest flock in American religion, the “nothing in particular” crowd is the second largest, at nearly 20 percent. Catholics are close behind at 18 percent.
Several other trends have affected the “nones” phenomenon, noted Burge. For example: Christians who say they never go to church increased from 10 percent in 1993 to above 15 percent in 2018. Meanwhile, America’s liberal “mainline” Protestant churches were 30.8 percent of the population in 1976 – but crashed to 19 percent in 1988 and down to 9.9 percent in 2016. Evangelical Protestants have remained relatively stable at about 21 percent, declining from a peak from 1983-2000. Catholics have varied between 27 and 23 percent, with mass attendance declining.
Most academics, politicos, journalists and even Christian apologists have, when addressing “nones” issues, focused on the most visible forms of this phenomenon, said Burge. It’s easy to find and quote articulate, highly motivated atheists and agnostics in online forums or “woke” secular activists on college and university campuses.
But “nothing in particular” Americans have remained in the shadows and it’s hard to find clear patterns that might explain their beliefs and behaviors. For example, not all “nothing in particular” Americans are unbelievers, strictly defined. One in 10 “NIPs” attend worship services yearly and another 10 percent attend monthly or more. And 25 percent of these Americans say that religion is “somewhat” or “very” important, with only 38.8 percent insisting that religion is “not at all important” in their lives.
“Nothing in particular Americans seem to be stuck. They’re left out. They’re cut off and trapped by globalization and economic forces that are totally beyond their control,” said Burge. “Many are angry, and they have nothing to lose. That’s why this NIP phenomenon is kind of scary to me.”
Terry Mattingly (tmatt.net) leads GetReligion.org and lives in Oak Ridge, Tenn. He is a senior fellow at the Overby Center at the University of Mississippi.
by Steve | May 26, 2021 | Magazine, Magazine Articles, May-June 2021, May/June MJ 2021
Jenifer Jones
By Jennifer Jones –
I almost didn’t go on the “GreenLight” mission trip. I had already participated in a fair number of short-term mission trips and had already visited the country where the team would be going. I was concerned whether the experience would bring me closer to solving the puzzle of what to do with my life – where God was leading me.
At 10 years old, I felt a call to missions after hearing missionaries speak at my church. I felt certain that I would go to college to become a teacher, marry a pastor, and head overseas. This was what I thought you had to do to become a missionary.
Then, just before graduating high school, I felt God saying “no” to missions. I was confused and angry. Had I not heard God’s voice after all? Why would he give me a desire to serve him overseas and not let me go?
I’ve always loved to write, so instead of going to school to become a teacher, I studied to become a journalist. After graduation, I got a job at a fantastic radio station. When it looked like there might be cuts at my workplace, I began looking for other options.
I felt God calling me to a year-long mission trip. “This is it!” I thought. “God is finally letting me go!” I figured I would fall in love with a country, feel the call to move there full-time, and I would be all set. That didn’t happen. But I realized I loved writing about what God was doing and my time as a journalist hadn’t been for nothing after all.
Once back in the United States, I began looking into organizations hiring missionary writers. Nothing felt quite right. A friend suggested I look into Asbury Theological Seminary, and I felt like it was what God wanted me to do. That’s where I was introduced to TMS Global and learned about its “GreenLight” missions trip – a short-term mentorship experience. My teammates and I spent three weeks learning from four cross-cultural
Workers (missionaries) and their children as they interacted with their community, their friends, their employees, and their family.
For parts of the experience, I questioned whether I was called to missions. For example, the needs of the people around us felt very overwhelming. I also questioned my skills. It didn’t always feel like I had much to contribute.
But on one of our last days, our hosts spent time noting positive things they had seen in myself and the other participants. These cross-cultural workers reminded me that just spending time with others could be a powerful contribution. They also affirmed my calling as a missions writer. Ultimately, I realized I did not feel a sense that I was meant to live full-time overseas, at least not right now.
Over the next couple of years, as I finished seminary, a mobilizer with TMS Global continued to work with me to further discern whether it was the right mission organization for me, and if so, what that might look like. She listened as I shared my hopes, goals, dreams, and desires. I could tell that she really cared about me, and not just about filling a spot in the organization. I wanted to tell missions stories. But I also wanted to live closer to my family. My new work at TMS Global incorporates multiple dreams that God had laid on my heart. It is a perfect fit for me.
The road to get where I am now has been long and winding, but I’m able to see how God has worked the various parts of my life and experiences together to prepare me for my current place. So much of my discernment process has been gradual. It has involved paying attention to my passions and talents, circumstances, life experiences, and wisdom from trusted sources. I’m grateful for the people who have guided me. I’m also thankful for experiences like the GreenLight trip that have helped me discern a place in God’s mission just right for me.
Jenifer Jones is a writer who focuses on telling stories about the work God is doing in the world. She’s also a poet. Find her writing at www.jeniferjones.com. If you are interested in someone walking alongside you in your discernment experience, reach out to TMS Global today at go@tms-global.org.
by Steve | May 26, 2021 | Magazine, Magazine Articles, May/June MJ 2021
B.J. Funk
By B.J. Funk –
Joseph was around seventeen when his cruel brothers sold him to a caravan of Ishmaelites on their way to Egypt. These folks were all kin, descending from half brothers Isaac and Ishmael. So much for loving your relatives.
It took 30 days for Joseph and the caravan to arrive in Egypt, and most of that time, Joseph was on foot and likely chained.
Egypt at that time was a land of extremes. There were the very rich and the very poor. The captain of Pharaoh’s guard, Potiphar, bought Joseph.
Potiphar was very rich. He had a huge home, several stories tall, with beautiful balconies and gardens. The rich knew how to spend some money, and they shopped for lavish decorations and furniture! They would never be seen at my yard sale. Or yours.
Joseph joined the other servants, working on the first floor while the family enjoyed the upper floors. Joseph found favor in Potiphar’s eyes because everything he did was successful. So, Potiphar put Joseph in charge of his household and of everything he owned. Because of Joseph, the blessing of the Lord was on Potiphar’s house and on his fields. Potiphar trusted Joseph, which is a miracle in itself because Egyptians despised shepherds. It was an intriguing and amazing occurrence, and God’s hand was all over it. “The Lord was with Joseph, and he prospered.” (Genesis 39: 2)
Potiphar’s wife noticed the dark skin, curly haired, muscular Joseph, and she decided she wanted to be with him. What could it hurt? She was not subtle. “Lie with me,” she said.
Joseph refused. “How could I do such a wicked thing and sin against God?” (Genesis 39:9). Potiphar’s wife looked puzzled. Wicked? He calls sex outside of marriage wicked? Wherever would he get an idea like that? And what’s this about sinning against God? Where did that come from? Who is this God anyway? She turned the whole scene around, blaming Joseph and bringing Potiphar’s fury. He put Joseph in the dungeon – and that’s where he met grace.
The story of Joseph is so covered with God that I can see him in every line, comma, and period! This is how God works when he is making a leader. He has to put him in the dungeon of life first. Keep him there. Teach him there. Break his pride. Stomp on his rebellious heart. Tear out jealousy, anger, resentment. Teach him to forgive, and wrap it all up with heavy doses of grace. Dungeon grace.
Joseph learned all of these lessons in his dungeon. Though painful and lonely, frightening and scary, Joseph came out of his dungeon a strong man, ready to be used of God. You cannot find any Lifetime, Netflix, or Hollywood movie better than the storyline of how God used a dungeon to make a man. It has drama, loneliness, fear, and survival woven into the storyline.
Growth and leadership happen to a person when God allows the dungeon to shape his heart. Make no mistake. If you want to move forward with God, a dungeon of some sort has to happen. You and I have to be willing to allow him to place us in as many dungeons as necessary until we come out refined, refreshed, redeemed, and ready to do His work. Fast forward to Romans and read what Paul said about troubles. He said suffering was the road to perseverance. “Not only so, but we also glory in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance” (Romans 5:3).
The dungeon was Joseph’s school and in daily classes of prison life, he learned a lot about himself, a lot about others, and a whole lot about forgiveness. He learned what was important in life and what was not. When Joseph was finally released from the dungeon, he was a different person. The spoiled teenager was replaced by a repentant man. The youth who saw only things that benefited him was now a leader who recognized how he could benefit others. When his brothers came to Egypt for grain because of a famine, he eventually said to them words of forgiveness and life. “You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives” (Genesis 50:20).
Your dungeon might be a difficult relationship, a financial strain, a rebellious child, or a nagging low self-image. Whatever, ask God to meet you there and to help you make it through. You will find that your dungeon will be the place of your deliverance. Embrace God’s gift – his gift of Dungeon Grace.
by Steve | May 21, 2021 | In the News
By Thomas Lambrecht –
Several weeks ago, I shared the story of the Rev. James Lee, a pastor in the Greater New Jersey Annual Conference at Bethany Korean UM Church.
His district superintendent notified him that Bishop John Schol was appointing him to a different, much smaller congregation. (Bethany is the largest congregation in the Greater New Jersey Conference.)
This notification came on the heels of the congregation joining the Wesleyan Covenant Association, and the appointment was made without any warning or advance consultation with either Lee or the church. In response, over 1,000 people signed a petition opposing Schol’s decision.
Bishop Schol in a public statement disputes our characterization of his appointment decision regarding Lee, calling it “false accusations” and “false information.” He took the virtually unprecedented step of outlining in a public statement the process used and his perception of how and why he decided to handle the Lee appointment in the way he did.
Schol alleges, “Good News or the WCA and its New Jersey affiliate never reached out to me about what occurred, even though I had sent the above information to them” (referring to the numbered points printed below). Just to be clear, he did not send information to us before we published our story, only in response to it. We checked the information Schol shared with us and found it mostly corroborated our story, with the exception of some disputed facts. We did not do a follow-up story until now.
We take seriously our responsibility to accurately report what is taking place in the church. People can and do take issue with our analysis and the conclusions we draw, but labeling our reporting as “false information” is irresponsible and untrue. Making room for the fact that different people can have different recollections or perceptions of how events have transpired, we have attempted to accurately report what took place regarding the appointment decision of the Rev. Lee. Since Bishop Schol has publicly shared about his appointment process, we invited the Rev. Lee to respond to Schol’s allegations. Lee’s responses and our analysis will correspond to the numbered points of Schol’s statement.
1. The central allegation in our story is that Schol made the appointment change without consulting with Lee or with Bethany UMC, as required by the Book of Discipline. The district superintendent simply notified Lee that his appointment would change.
Schol responded that “The initiating of an appointment change was the result of a four-year long process surrounding concerns of [Lee’s] leadership.”
Lee states, “I have been appointed to Bethany Church as a lead pastor since 2015. The concerns were brought before me and our church in March 2019, [when] at that time, the Bishop attempted to appoint me to another church. When the concerns were brought before us during our meeting with the Bishop and the superintendent in 2019, the bishop noted, ‘Pastor James is a great pastor with a great leadership, but just not UMC pastor.’”
There was no advance warning that Lee’s appointment was in danger, nor was there consultation with Lee and the church specifically about the proposed new appointment. As will be evident below, there was no ongoing dialog regarding any concerns surrounding Lee’s leadership.
2. Schol asserts, “Over the years, [Lee] was asked to move more than once, and on each occasion, the former pastor said he would not leave the church he was presently serving and that he would only serve his current church and no other church in GNJ. This is a clear violation of The Book of Discipline and the practices of itineracy.”
Lee responds, “The first time Bishop brought up a possibility of a new appointment was in March 2019. I was asked to be moved once.” Due to a request for reconsideration by Lee and the congregation, Lee was not moved in 2019.
Lee indicated his willingness to accept another appointment on the annual appointment report form. If Lee had made the statement attributed to him that he would “only serve his current church and no other church in GNJ,” Schol’s proper course of action would have been to file a complaint against Lee. A unilateral decision to move Lee to another church in response to his alleged unwillingness to move would be a punitive use of the appointment process and contrary to the Discipline.
3. Schol states, “I met with the congregation’s leadership and SPRC committee on more than six different occasions over the years about [Lee’s] leadership. The superintendent met with [Lee] and the congregation’s leaders even more than this.”
Lee responds, “I can’t really recall how many times we’ve met, but other than our meetings back in March 2019 (the Bishop came by only once, and the district superintendent met with our leadership twice during this time) when the possibility of my appointment was discussed (later rescinded), our meetings were cordial. Our meetings with the superintendent were usually over meals, and we talked about various aspects of ministries and apportionment. The discussions were not about my leadership.”
4. Schol states, “I supported [Lee’s] return to the congregation with certain stipulations.”
Lee responds, “[Schol] said that the stipulations would need to be in place ‘in order to even consider the possibility of rescinding the appointment.’ Bishop said even if these stipulations are in place, he would not be able to make this decision on his own, but would need to discuss with his cabinet of superintendents.”
5. Schol states, “We have a consultation process that includes an opportunity for a pastor to indicate any limitations (limited itineracy) that a pastor may share with the cabinet about being moved, and [Lee] did not indicate that he had limited itineracy.”
This statement actually contradicts point 2 above. How could Lee have stated he would serve no other church in GNJ, but at the same time have indicated that he was open to a new appointment?
Lee responds, “It was true that I had no need to indicate any limitations (limited itinerancy) about being moved, for I understood that as a UMC pastor, if I am called upon to receive an appointment, I should always be ready. I didn’t realize that such attitude and preparedness would be misinterpreted.”
The issue here is not that Lee failed to indicate he had limited itineracy, but that there was no prior consultation, only a notification about an appointment that appeared to be punitive in nature.
6. Schol states, “[Lee] was disrespectful to the district superintendent, and on one occasion indicated to the congregation that the bishop was to be forbidden to enter the church.”
All churches in the Greater New Jersey Annual Conference were allowed a four-month apportionment “holiday,” during which they were not required to pay apportionments due to the pandemic hardship. Lee explains, “However, the superintendent asked Bethany church to pay in full (100 percent), setting an example for other churches to follow, and the superintendent asked me to speak to the congregation to give more by going the extra miles. To that directive, I told her that I would not ask our congregation to do so during this pandemic, but to allow Bethany the same grace of four months’ exemption. I told her that we have members who have lost their loved ones, and they are grieving. We have members who lost their jobs and their businesses, and they are in financial hardship. We have members who were considering relocating to other states to find work to support their family. So, in the midst of all these hardships, I could not stand before our members and ask them to give more offering so that we can submit 100 percent apportionment. Because of this refusal, the superintendent apparently reported to the cabinet and the bishop that I disrespected her.”
Furthermore, Lee asserts, “The bishop was never ‘forbidden to enter our church’ as noted. However, I did share with our congregation that the bishop decided to stand against the decision of the General Conference and would continue to lead our GNJ Conference towards the One Church Plan conference. It was at this point I told our congregation that I cannot, in good conscience, open this pulpit to a bishop who does not abide by the Book of Discipline by which he/she should be governed and set an example, and above all, clearly stands against the truth of God’s Word and His eternal mandate.”
7. Schol states, “This year when a move was discussed in early March, the cabinet followed its prayerful discernment process and indicated a move should go forward.”
The issue is not whether the cabinet followed its prayerful discernment process. The issue is that there was no consultation with the pastor or the congregation, as mandated by the Book of Discipline.
8. Schol states, “Recently, following a sermon preached by [Lee], members of the congregation voiced their concerns. For instance, [Lee] used the story of Moses and Pharaoh, and compared himself to Moses and said, ‘I am Moses appointed by God to this congregation not by a man or an organization.’ He went on to say that he had let the leaders of the church have too much authority and that he would be taking back authority.”
Lee responds, “It is unfortunate that someone mistranslated the Korean sermon I have shared that Saturday (April 17th). That particular sermon the bishop is referring to is still online. By the way, our sermon theme and texts are pre-determined by our Quiet Time resource called the ‘Daily Bible’ which we have been using for many years. I never said I was Moses, but as God’s servants, we have all received ‘the call of Moses.’ I did say, however, that upon meditating on the passage carefully, I noted that Moses was appointed by God when he was sent to lead Israelites out of Egypt, and I said as God’s servants, we are not ‘appointed by men or manmade organization,’ but ultimately, God’s servants are appointed by Him. During the supervisory meeting, the Bishop confronted me with this same question. I replied to him that when he claimed to have made this appointment decision ‘prayerfully,’ I would assume that he prayed to God seeking His direction, so in one sense, isn’t it true that it was ultimately ‘God’ who makes the appointment?”
Lee continues, “I never said that I ‘had let the leaders (lay elders at our church) of the church have too much authority and that I would be taking back authority.’ Again, someone who translated the sermon has really taken this out of context.”
When the bishop notified Lee of his intention to appoint him to a different church, Lee consulted the lay elders. They recommended that Lee take a leave of absence, rather than contest the appointment. However, when some congregation members heard about this, “they became very upset, and started to blame the elders for lack of strong leadership and unwillingness to take a united stand against the decision by the Bishop and the cabinet,” Lee reports. “When I witnessed our lay elders getting the heat and the blame from the congregation members, I realized that I was wrong to delegate this decision upon the elders, placing this burden, and felt responsible for the elders being attacked and for the division of the church. I shared with our lay elders that rather than delegating this important decision, I should’ve been a better spiritual leader and be responsible to make decisions as shepherd of the flock.”
9. Schol states, “I offered the opportunity for [Lee] to continue to serve at his present appointment if he would apologize for his disrespect to the superintendent and acknowledge that he did not follow through on matters he agreed to. He indicated he could not do this, and without being asked, surrendered his credentials.”
Lee responds, “Bishop Schol noted that with recent articles and news that have been written and circulated through various sources (including the website and news article), harms have occurred to the denomination, conference, and Bishop and superintendent. He wanted me to take personal responsibility and to repair these damages by: (1) During Sunday worship, publicly acknowledge that I made a grave mistake ‘by undermining the authority of the Bishop and the superintendent,’ and to seek forgiveness publically, (2) to make this apology public by allowing the conference to upload my statement online on the UMC Website and, if necessary, print and circulate it ‘to correct any misunderstanding.’ And (3) he wanted me to apologize to him and the superintendent for publicly undermining their authority and their position by disregarding their appointment order within the UMC. Also, (4) I was to denounce what was written about this appointment in the Good News article, ‘Turmoil in New Jersey’ by Rev. Lambrecht. My statement for Bethany Church would have been used against other traditional church pastors in conferences outside of GNJ. Again, even if I were to make all these public statements, there was no promise of rescinding my appointment, but only the promise of ‘consideration’ and ‘discussion’ with the cabinet. The bishop stated that ‘it would be a start.’ In the end, I responded that I cannot make such statements with good conscience before God and cannot face my wife and my daughters if I agreed to these unjust stipulations, and therefore, I had no choice but to surrender my credentials.”
10. Schol states, “There are accusations that the appointment was because of [Lee’s] participation in the Wesleyan Covenant Association (WCA) and his stance against any change in The Book of Discipline about ministry with and by the LGBTQ. This is false. Our work over the past four years with [Lee] had nothing to do with his affiliation with the WCA or ministry with and by LGBTQ persons. The cabinet and I act with integrity in assessing and appointing pastors.”
To set the record straight, Good News did not make that accusation. We simply reported that was the perception of the lay elder in the congregation and the president of the WCA chapter in New Jersey. The lay elder, Mr. Sang Chul Shin, believes the action was taken “to separate the pastor from the church to weaken the congregation, so it decides not to leave The United Methodist Church for the Global Methodist Church.” Shin also believes the conference “wants to push out Pastor Lee because he has taken a vocal stance against the bishop’s position about homosexuality.” The WCA President, Rev. Beth Caulfield, said, “We are deeply saddened that one of our Greater New Jersey member churches would be targeted, especially after Bishop Schol has made statements that there would be no mistreatment of traditional churches or pastors through appointments or other actions by the Conference during this time of great division in our denomination.”
Lee responds, “At that time, I had a strong urgency to join WCA in order to venture into an uncertain future and prepare Bethany Church for possible decisions our GNJ Conference would make prior to the Protocol of Reconciliation and Grace through Separation being implemented. It was at this point all our lay elders agreed that it would be a wise and an appropriate timing to join WCA as a church, so Bethany Church joined WCA. I still remember, a few days after we joined WCA, I received a text message from the superintendent asking if it was true that the Bethany Church had joined the WCA, and I confirmed it as a fact. She was definitely not pleased with our decision. Even though they (the Bishop and the superintendent) continue to deny that this has been a factor in making this appointment, I have to strongly disagree, because the tension and the conflict have stemmed surrounding these events that related to these issues.”
Bishop Schol names “two caucuses that seek to divide United Methodists based on theological understandings, Good News and the Wesleyan Covenant Association and its New Jersey affiliate.” We respectfully disagree. Our purpose is not to divide United Methodists, but to inform them. For over 50 years, Good News has worked for the renewal and reform of The United Methodist Church, persuading countless individuals and congregations to remain in the church, rather than depart from it. We have steadfastly supported the United Methodist position on marriage and sexuality.
It is only now, when many bishops and annual conferences in the U.S. have made it clear they do not intend to live by the decisions of General Conference and our Book of Discipline, that Good News and the WCA have reluctantly acknowledged that two diametrically opposed understandings of the faith can no longer live together within the same denomination.
Even now, our purpose is to prepare faithfully for whatever comes next and to keep the grass roots of the church informed of what is happening. When people understand the situation and their options, they are better equipped to make an informed, prayerful decision as to their own future with the church.
During this time of delay, we continue to advocate for a de-escalation of conflict between the various groups of our church. Unfortunately, Bishop Schol chose, through his decision to abruptly move Rev. Lee, to cause division in Bethany Korean UMC and exacerbate the tension, mistrust, and hostility in the denomination. There was no urgent reason this appointment needed to happen this year. With General Conference less than 18 months away, it would be wise to avoid provocative actions that end up further alienating people from one another. We are committed to working for an amicable separation based on mutual respect and consideration. We hope others will operate in that same spirit.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
