Turmoil in New Jersey

by Steve | Apr 26, 2021 | In the News

Bethany Korean United Methodist Church (Mapquest)

By Thomas Lambrecht —

Complaints about bishops exerting autocratic authority are nothing new in Methodism. Such grievances leveled against Francis Asbury, the first Methodist bishop in America, were the cause behind Methodism’s first schism. Rev. James O’Kelly objected to pastoral appointments made by Bishop Asbury and introduced a proposal to allow pastors to appeal an unsatisfactory appointment to the conference, which could override the bishop’s decision. The motion generated acrimonious debate and failed to be adopted at the 1796 General Conference. O’Kelly and his supporters walked out of the conference and formed the Republican Methodist Church, later called the Christian Church, which became a forerunner to the Disciples of Christ denomination (The Story of American Methodism, Frederick A. Norwood, pp. 127-129).

Over the succeeding 200 years, some safeguards have been put in place to guard against the potential abuse of power by bishops in the appointment of clergy to congregations. Unfortunately, some bishops and district superintendents still find ways to ignore or maneuver around these safeguards.

With the second delay of General Conference now until 2022, it appears that some bishops in the U.S. are taking advantage of the opportunity to seize control of local churches through the appointment process. Their goal appears to be to influence those congregations not to join the proposed traditionalist Global Methodist Church or to reap a share of the church’s assets by forcing an early departure.

Several licensed local pastors in Wisconsin, Iowa, and some other conferences have been discontinued by their district committee on ministry when the pastors were honest about their intention to join the Global Methodist Church when it is formed after the Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace through Separation has passed General Conference. We have heard that some small local churches have been closed or their pastors reappointed elsewhere simply because they asked about the process for disaffiliating from The United Methodist Church. In some conferences, centrist pastors have been appointed to congregations that are more traditional in an effort to keep them from departing to the Global Methodist Church when that option becomes available.

We are watching an egregious example of an episcopal power play taking place with Mt. Bethel UMC in the North Georgia annual conference. Its pastor, the Rev. Dr. Jody Ray, is being removed by the bishop over the objection of both the pastor and the congregation. Mt. Bethel is the largest congregation in that annual conference.

Bethany Korean UMC

A similar occurrence is generating turmoil in Bethany Korean UMC in Wayne, New Jersey, part of the Greater New Jersey Annual Conference. With a membership of over 1,800 and a pre-Covid attendance of nearly 1,500 (2018 numbers, the most recently published statistics) on two campuses, Bethany is the largest church in the Greater New Jersey Conference. They pay more than $350,000 per year in apportionments – over $200,000 more than any other congregation in their annual conference.

On March 15, the senior pastor, Rev. James Lee, was notified by his district superintendent that he would be appointed to a mostly-white congregation in the southern part of the state that has about 150 members, one-tenth the size of Bethany. Such a move could entail a substantial reduction in salary. In addition, Rev. Lee has a daughter entering her senior year in high school, making a move potentially problematic.

By any measure, this appointment would be a demotion and could be considered a punitive appointment.

Lee received his ministerial education at Fuller Theological Seminary and served with the Pentecostal Holiness Church in Oklahoma before becoming an ordained elder in the UM Church in 2011. He served four years as an associate pastor at Bethany before being named the senior pastor in 2015. He succeeded the founding pastor of the church, who served for 30 years. The fact that the church has maintained its membership and vitality after the founding pastor’s retirement is a credit to Lee’s leadership and the congregation’s response. (Churches coming off a long-tenure pastor often experience a time of decline and even conflict.)

In 2019 following the St. Louis special General Conference, Bishop John Schol stated “he would not forward complaints for trial concerning LGBTQ people’s right to marry, seek ordination, or for pastors who perform same-sex unions.” Bethany and Rev. Lee joined a letter by the Association of Korean United Methodist Churches of Greater New Jersey protesting the Greater New Jersey Way Forward that proposed “to allow United Methodist churches to decide how to include and affirm LGBTQ people in every aspect of ministry while still allowing congregations the right to agree to disagree.” This was essentially an enactment of the One Church Plan at the annual conference level, which has been challenged before the Judicial Council. We are still awaiting a ruling on the case.

In addition, Bethany Korean decided in November 2020 to become a member of the Wesleyan Covenant Association. Bethany’s leaders have stated their intention that the church would join the proposed Global Methodist Church after the Protocol is passed by General Conference.

Mr. Sang Chul Shin, a lay elder at Bethany and former SPRC chair, believes the bishop’s action was “unjust and uncalled for,” 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.” Further, he says “our church is the right church to be made an example of, to cause other churches to be afraid of what will happen to their pastors and congregations if they go against the bishop.” Pastor Lee reported that his district superintendent had warned him not to speak about the bishop’s proposals affirming LGBT practices.

The congregation has reacted with anger and frustration. A petition to ask the bishop to reconsider the appointment by the congregation garnered over 850 congregant signatures in less than 12 hours.

The Rev. Beth Caulfield, president of the WCA chapter in Greater New Jersey, stated, “We denounce the treatment of Rev. Lee and the Bethany Church by Bishop Schol and the Greater New Jersey Cabinet. Such a decision, made well into the appointment season, without prior consultation with the largest church in our Conference or its pastor, is highly dishonoring and inconsiderate. That such a destabilizing move would be made during this pandemic time to a church whose congregation includes a large percentage of small business owners who are undertaking some of the largest hits and undergoing some of the highest stresses now and thus seek critical comfort through their church’s solidity, is unconscionable. 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. Our hearts, prayers, and solidarity go out for Reverend Lee, his family, and the entire Bethany UMC Community.”

No Consultation

Neither the bishop nor the district superintendent consulted with Rev. Lee or the Bethany staff-parish relations committee prior to notifying Lee of his change of appointment. Such consultation is required by the Book of Discipline.

“When a change in appointment has been determined, the district superintendent should meet together or separately with the pastor and the committee on [staff]-parish relations where the pastor is serving, for the purpose of sharing the basis for the change and the process used in making the new appointment” (¶ 428.3) “Consultation is not merely notification” (¶ 426). “The process of consultation shall be mandatory in every annual conference” (¶ 426.1).

The Discipline allows for proposed appointments to be rescinded. “If during this consultative process it is determined by the bishop and cabinet that this decision should not be carried out, the process is to be repeated until the bishop, basing his or her decision on the information and advice derived from consultation, makes and fixes the appointment” (¶ 428.8).

Since there was no consultation with either Lee or the committee, the appointment process was short-circuited from the beginning. Lee requested reconsideration of the appointment twice, but was turned down. The committee also requested reconsideration of the appointment, which led the bishop and district superintendent finally to meet with the committee. However, the bishop apparently came to the meeting with his mind made up. He reportedly told the committee that he had prayed about the decision and felt God leading him to move Lee to another church. The bishop’s decision was apparently not based on any information or advice given to him by the committee or by Lee.

Abuse of Confidentiality

When initially notified of the change of appointment, Lee was told to keep it confidential and tell no one. Upon rejecting his first request for reconsideration, the district superintendent required Lee to again tell no one, with the exception this time he could tell his wife.

There is no requirement in the Book of Discipline that a proposed appointment be kept strictly confidential. In fact, the consultation process noted above requires sharing of information with the staff-parish relations committee. It is understandable that the announcement of an appointment should not become public knowledge until it is officially announced, since it could be reconsidered and rescinded. The Discipline says, “When the steps in the process have been followed and completed, the announcement of that decision shall be made to all parties directly involved in the consultative process … before a public announcement is made” (¶ 428.10). But to require strict confidentiality isolates the pastor from those who could advise him or her about the intended appointment. The bishop has the cabinet to advise him, so to isolate the pastor creates an even greater power imbalance that sets the table for potential abuse of power. To disallow communication with the pastor’s spouse is patently an abuse of confidentiality, since the spouse is greatly affected by this decision and should have input into it.

Timing of the Appointment

Potential changes of appointment at the denomination’s largest churches are normally discussed six to twelve months before they become effective. As quoted in the article linked above regarding Mt. Bethel UMC in Georgia, the Rev. Rick Just, a former district superintendent and currently the senior pastor at Asbury Church in Wichita, Kansas, explains, “Making a change at a mid to large size local church often requires significant and careful planning. The attention given is not simply out of bias for large churches; it’s done because there can be anywhere from a dozen to hundreds of employees who will be impacted by a change in senior leadership. It’s not something you want to do without carefully considering the serious ramifications for everyone involved. In fact, it is not uncommon for bishops and SPRCs at some of the denomination’s very largest churches to work with a search firm to help the bishop and congregation find a suitable pastor who has proven administrative skills.”

For a change of appointment to be announced at the annual conference’s largest church, with no advance consultation, just two months before the annual conference meeting is virtually unheard of, except in the case of unforeseen circumstances.

The lack of consultation and the lateness of this appointment change convey an impression of the bishop’s and conference’s lack of respect for Pastor Lee and for Bethany Korean UMC. This appears odd in light of Bishop Schol’s oft-stated commitment to eliminating racism and the current climate of growing awareness of anti-Asian sentiment in this country.

Schol gave Lee an ultimatum to either accept the new appointment, go on leave of absence, or surrender his ministerial credentials. Lee chose to do none of those options, and instead requested reconsideration again. The cabinet turned down the request for reconsideration. Instead, a complaint has been filed against Lee and he has been suspended from ministry pending a supervisory hearing. The bishop has appointed a retired pastor in the interim and will work with the church to appoint a new senior pastor.

Biblically speaking, episcopal authority is given by God “for building you up, not for tearing you down” (II Corinthians 10:8, 13:10). When one surveys the scenarios portrayed above, they seem like examples of the use of authority in a way that tears down individual pastors and the vitality of local churches. The disregarding of safeguards in the Discipline and the singling out of large, traditionalist churches bodes ill for maintaining the fragile peace that currently exists while we wait for General Conference to act on the Protocol. And it certainly belies the claim of One Church Plan or Christmas Covenant proponents that traditionalists will be welcome and treated fairly in a post-separation United Methodist Church.

Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.

Experience vs. Scripture

by Steve | Apr 16, 2021 | In the News

Wendy van Zyl (Pexels)

By Thomas Lambrecht —

Many who affirm the practice of homosexuality in contrast to the teachings of Scripture base their affirmation on human experience. As they would describe it, they see God at work in the transformation of a human life, and it causes them to reinterpret Scripture in the light of this experience.

An influential 2007 article Dr. Luke Timothy Johnson, emeritus professor of New Testament and Christian Origins at Candler School of Theology, Emory University, is making the rounds again. Writing from a Roman Catholic perspective, Johnson bases his argument in support of “covenanted love between persons of the same sex” almost entirely on experience. It is helpful to engage in dialogue with the ideas that he puts forward.

Experience over the Bible

Johnson candidly acknowledges that “the present crisis in Christian denominations over homosexuality” is not “really about sex.” “In my view,” he writes, it “has less to do with sex than with perceived threats to the authority of Scripture and the teaching authority of the church” (what Methodists would call tradition). In this respect, Johnson accurately perceives the situation. Evangelicals and conservatives have all along stated that our reason for opposing the accommodations Johnson supports is because it would contravene the teachings of Scripture, which is our primary authority and “true rule and guide for faith and practice” (Confession of Faith, Article IV).

Johnson goes on, “I think it important to state clearly that we do, in fact, reject the straightforward commands of Scripture, and appeal instead to another authority when we declare that same-sex unions can be holy and good. And what exactly is that authority? We appeal explicitly to the weight of our own experience and the experience thousands of others have witnessed to, which tells us that to claim our own sexual orientation is in fact to accept the way in which God has created us. By so doing, we explicitly reject as well the premises of the scriptural statements condemning homosexuality – namely, that it is a vice freely chosen, a symptom of human corruption, and disobedience to God’s created order.”

One could hardly ask for a clearer statement of the substitution of experience for Scripture as the church’s authority. Later in the article, Johnson states, “What I find most important of all is not the authority found in specific commands, which are fallible, conflicting, and often culturally conditioned, but rather the way Scripture creates the mind of Christ in its readers, authorizing them to reinterpret written texts in light of God’s Holy Spirit active in human lives. … Our stories become the medium of God’s very revelation.”

Johnson explicitly rejects the authority of scriptural commands, which he deems fallible – that is, liable to be erroneous or mistaken. Instead, he relies on the mind of Christ being reproduced in the readers of the Bible, revealing God’s truth through our human stories and experiences and enabling us to reinterpret the written Scriptures in light of that experiential revelation.

Johnson and I both agree on Christian disciples having the mind of Christ. But how is each individual understanding of Christ’s mind, or even the collective understanding found in some group in the church, any more infallible or reliable than the supposedly fallible commands of Scripture? At least the Scriptures were vetted by the people of God over centuries of time and affirmed officially by the church as the word of God. What church body vets and affirms the “revelations” of experience? Presumably, based on the illustrations Johnson puts forward, that affirmation comes when the church in general comes to believe over time that a particular perspective is true. But history is full of times when the church as a whole or some authoritative body of the church got it wrong. The Reformation came about because the Catholic Church had lost its way in understanding the Gospel. The Wesleyan revival came about because the Church of England had substituted ritual for discipleship and forsaken its mission to the least and the lost.

Furthermore, it is circular thinking to suppose that the “fallible” teachings of Scripture can “create the [infallible] mind of Christ in its readers.” Substituting subjective human experience and human discernment for the clear teaching of Scripture (even though judged by some as itself fallible) does not yield greater certainty or confidence in what is being taught. From a progressive point of view, it is trading one fallible source of belief for another.

The Role of the Fall

Johnson’s experiential understanding is that “the way in which God has created us” consists in varying sexual orientations – all of which are good because that is how God created us (and in Genesis 1, God declares creation good). Such an understanding completely disregards the effects of the Fall recorded in Genesis 3. When Adam and Eve sinned, all creation (including human nature) was corrupted by sin and became subject to death. Sexual orientations that do not align with God’s will for human sexuality are in fact symptoms of the Fall. Even heterosexual orientation was corrupted, in that we often express our heterosexuality in sinful and broken ways.

Johnson rejects the premise that same-sex attraction is “a symptom of human corruption.” In so doing, Johnson rejects more than just the commands of Scripture, but the very theological foundation upon which Christianity exists. If human nature was not corrupted by sin, there is no need for a Savior, and consequently Jesus’ death on the cross becomes pointless.

Continuing Revelation?

Johnson states, “we place our trust in the power of the living God to reveal as powerfully through personal experience and testimony as through written texts.” Implicit throughout the article is the notion that God’s self-revelation continues today through the lives and stories of God’s people. And that new revelation can contradict or even negate the teaching of Scripture. This idea is known as “continuing revelation” or an “open canon.” Its understanding is that the Bible is not God’s last word on who he is and what his will for humanity entails. Instead, God’s revelation of new truth continues even today, and the authority of such new revelation is equal or superior to the authority of the Bible.

(This idea is found in Adam Hamilton’s Making Sense of the Bible, where he says, “a key premise of this book is that the Bible’s authors were inspired by the Spirit in the same wayand to the same degree as many contemporary preachers and prophets and even ordinary Christians have been inspired by the Spirit in every age. … I believe the inspiration experienced by the biblical authors was not different from our own experience of inspiration” (p. 294 – emphasis original)).

Johnson uses the example of how the New Testament reframed the teaching of the Old Testament in light of the experience of Jesus Christ. “Indeed, the New Testament compositions owe their existence to the struggle to resolve the cognitive dissonance between a set of sacred texts that appeared to exclude a crucified messiah as God’s chosen one (‘cursed be everyone who hangs on a tree,’ Deuteronomy 21:23) and the powerful experience of Jesus’ new and exalted life as Lord through the Holy Spirit. … In this interpretive struggle, brave witnesses like Paul refused to force their experience of God in Christ into the frame of their previous understanding of Scripture. Instead, they followed the witness of the experience of God in Christ among them, and in light of that experience began to reread and reinterpret all of their Scripture as prophecy that disclosed Christ in ways they had not perceived before – and could not have perceived before.”

There is no question that the coming of Jesus as Messiah into the world changed everything. Yet it was not the disciples’ experience of Jesus, but it was Jesus himself who revolutionized his disciples’ understanding of the Old Testament. Jesus “taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law” (Matthew 7:29). Jesus spoke (at minimum) as a prophet, one who had unique authority to speak a message from God. And through his resurrection, Jesus proved that he was more than a prophet – he was and is the only-begotten Son of the Father (John 3:16-18). In Paul’s words, Jesus “is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. … He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him” (Colossians 1:15-20).

It was Jesus’ unique authority as Messiah/Christ, Son of God, and Head of the Church that gives him the authority to reinterpret the Old Testament in a new way. No one before or since Jesus has that same authority. For us to claim the ability to receive authoritative revelation from God that supersedes the teaching of Scripture is to claim an authority equal to Jesus, which is sacrilegious. The apostolic authority of the New Testament is based on the claim that those who wrote it were with Jesus and heard his teaching. Even Paul was taught by the risen Christ, particularly during his time in Arabia (Acts 9, Galatians 1:17-18).

Obeying the Commandments

Following his resurrection, Jesus commanded us to “make disciples of all nations … teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:19-20). In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus taught, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. … Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:17-19).

Yes, we have to wrestle with individual commands and passages of Scripture to understand what they meant in their historical context and how they might apply to Christians today living in a very different cultural context. Jesus himself negated the kosher food laws and ceremonial requirements of the Old Testament. As our Articles of Religion put it, “Although the law given from God by Moses as touching ceremonies and rites doth not bind Christians, nor ought the civil precepts thereof of necessity be received in any commonwealth [although such precepts could be instructive to how governments can function]; yet notwithstanding, no Christian whatsoever is free from the obedience of the commandments which are called moral” (Article VI).

Yet this is a very different understanding of the nature and role of Scripture from what Johnson promotes. The traditional Christian understanding is that we interpret our experience in light of Scripture, not the other way around. Our experiences can help us understand Scripture in new ways, but such understandings need to be consistent with Scripture itself, not contradict or overturn it. Johnson’s proposal to substitute the authority of experience for the authority of Scripture is contrary to our Methodist and Anglican understanding and a departure from the consistent Protestant practice of centuries.

I appreciate the irenic spirit and clarity with which Johnson defends his views. These are important ideas that merit serious engagement. More could be said about other aspects of Johnson’s article. This discussion, however, illuminates the deep divide within Christianity and within United Methodism over our understanding of the inspiration and authority of Scripture. This is the real issue that is currently (unfortunately) playing out in concrete ways over our church’s teachings on marriage and human sexuality. We have in fact two very different understandings of the Christian faith that can no longer live together in one church body. We need to recognize this fact and move toward an amicable resolution of this divide through the Protocol of Separation, so that we can demonstrate to the world how the church can resolve irreconcilable differences in a spirit of love and grace.

Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.

Getting the UM Church Unstuck

by Steve | Apr 9, 2021 | In the News

Photo by Aubrey Odom (Unsplash).

By Thomas Lambrecht — 

The dust is clearing after an eventful month in The United Methodist Church. General Conference is postponed in-person to August 2022. A special virtual General Conference was scheduled for May 8, 2021, and then cancelled. The new Global Methodist Church has been unveiled as a denomination in formation – to be formally inaugurated following the anticipated enactment of the Protocol of Reconciliation and Grace through Separation at an upcoming General Conference.

The desire to hold a virtual General Conference in May demonstrated how “stuck” the church currently is. The Commission on the General Conference concluded it could not hold a General Conference virtually because it would rule out equitable participation by all delegates around the world, particularly in Africa and the Philippines. Yet, the Council of Bishops felt the need to call a virtual General Conference despite that anticipated inequity.

The Judicial Council had to formulate church law (not their responsibility) in order to save the administrative process allowing the church to deal with ineffective clergy and clergy unable to fulfill their duties, after the Council had ruled that process unconstitutional. Bishops that are required to retire under the Book of Discipline cannot retire because their jurisdictional or central conference cannot meet. General, jurisdictional, and central conferences are not empowered to meet virtually in extraordinary circumstances. There is no way to change the quadrennial budget if the General Conference cannot meet to do so. Therefore, the church continues to operate under the 2017-2020 budget, which is obsolete. Certain annual conference officers cannot be elected until after the General Conference meets. These and other decisions await the opportunity for General Conference to meet, and they show how the church is “stuck” in the meantime.

What about the Protocol for Separation?

The Council of Bishops’ agenda for the special virtual General Conference did not include the Protocol. Yet the biggest obstacle to getting the church “unstuck” is the decision about moving forward with separation. If the General Conference approves of separation, then conferences and churches can move forward with their decision about how they want to align themselves. If the General Conference does not approve of separation, then the church would return to the state of elevated conflict seen during and after General Conference 2019.

Acting on administrative matters, but not the Protocol, might get the church “unstuck” administratively, but it would not get the church “unstuck” in the larger sense. We would continue to live in uncertainty, unable to effectively invest in expanded ministry and unsure of our future identity. This is not healthy.

It would be far better to deal with the big decision on separation early, so that all the other decisions to be made in the future could flow from that one.

• What should the budget be for the current quadrennium and into the years beyond? That depends upon whether separation occurs and how many churches and members align with a new denomination.
• How many bishops should we elect in 2022 (or whenever episcopal elections become possible)? That depends upon how many annual conferences remain in The United Methodist Church and what their financial capacity is.
• Should we elect five new bishops in Africa, as promised in 2016? That depends on how many African annual conferences remain in the UM Church or go with the Global Methodist Church, and what is the financial capacity of the UM Church after separation.
• What will be the annual conference boundaries? That depends upon how many local churches remain in each region. Annual conference boundaries will likely need to be redrawn in some cases by the jurisdictional or central conferences when they are able to meet.
• How many general church boards and agencies do we need and how should they be structured? That depends upon how many people remain in the UM Church and what is the financial capacity of the remaining denomination.
• How many seminaries can the UM Church sustain? That depends upon how many students are likely to go into ministry in the church and how many churches remain as potential places to serve.

These and many other decisions flow from the one big decision about separation. The Council of Bishops envisioned at least some of these decisions taking place in virtual jurisdictional and central conference meetings later in 2021, which now may not be possible. But those decisions would be shots in the dark if we have not decided about separation.

As the Council of Bishops engages in “deep listening” – their phrase – and attempts to discern “a new timeline” leading up to the next General Conference, they should formulate a way for the General Conference delegates to consider and act upon the Protocol at the earliest possible time.

An Emerging Concern

I have concerns about the viability of an August 2022 in-person General Conference. Current vaccination information coming out of Africa is that some parts of the continent will be less than half vaccinated by the middle of 2023! Unless the pace of supply and distribution of vaccines picks up dramatically, it will not be possible for African delegates to travel to the U.S. for a 2022 General Conference. Under that scenario, an in-person General Conference may not be possible until the scheduled conference in May 2024.

For the church to remain “stuck” for the next three years would present an untenable situation that would contribute to the further precipitous decline of the church in the U.S. and other areas. The longer the delay in acting on the Protocol, the more opportunities for bishops and cabinets to marginalize evangelical and traditionalist clergy and congregations in their annual conferences. We have had several reports that local pastors were discontinued by their district committee on ordained ministry because those local pastors were honest about their intention to align with the Global Methodist Church when such alignment is possible. We have had reports of local churches being closed when they inquired of their district superintendent how much they would have to pay if they decided to withdraw from the church prior to the Protocol passing.

The tenuous truce that currently exists, where no complaints are filed against partnered gay clergy or clergy who perform same-sex weddings, may be jeopardized by zealous progressive proponents victimizing traditionalist clergy and congregations. The longer we put off separating, the more likely the truce will unravel. The original moratorium proposed in the Protocol against the processing of complaints regarding LGBT clergy and weddings was only supposed to last five months until the Protocol was enacted. (Once it is enacted, there is no reason for traditionalists to file complaints, since they will be embarking to a new denomination.) But a five-month truce that turns into four years becomes a much more unstable situation that could jeopardize the spirit of calm that has characterized the past year of the church conflict.

It is up to the Council of Bishops and the Commission on the General Conference to begin planning now for the potential further postponement of General Conference beyond 2022 and setting in place the means for having a virtual General Conference that could address the Protocol.

What about Amendments to the Protocol?

With a virtual General Conference, it is possible that there could be limited or no amendments to the Protocol and limited debate on the floor of General Conference. Given that the Protocol has been published and discussed publicly for over a year, it seems that the delegates ought to be familiar with its provisions. Additional communications could be prepared by the Protocol mediation group to further inform delegates of its provisions. A website has been available for over a year, with the Protocol agreement, the proposed legislation, frequently asked questions, and a PowerPoint presentation. They are available in all the official church languages. The resources are there to communicate the provisions of the plan.

There are some who would like to make changes to the provisions of the Protocol. If enough delegates want to entertain amendments, the Commission on General Conference could work out a way to do so. Alternatively, the delegates could decide to postpone action on the Protocol until an in-person General Conference becomes possible, even if it has to wait until 2024. However, the advantages of making the big decision on separation now in order to set the table for all the other following decisions outweighs any advantage that might be gained by the uncertainty of adopting amendments at a future date. Those proposed changes might not pass, and then we would have waited months or years for nothing. The grassroots laity in our church already believes this decision has been postponed far too long. Waiting will only reinforce that perception, no matter the good motives of those who want to postpone it.

Furthermore, the terms of the Protocol were negotiated in very rigorous and conflictual discussions. Each term was the result of a careful compromise between various viewpoints. For a majority of the delegates to change even one of the terms of the Protocol could jeopardize support for the whole package. While no one at the table thought the Protocol was perfect according to their perspective, all agreed that it is the best way to resolve our conflict and allow the church to get “unstuck.”

What about the Money?

Some are concerned that the church might not be able to afford the provision that shares $25 million with a new traditionalist denomination and $2 million with other denominations that might form. While the apportionment income to the general church understandably fell in 2020, the financial provision was negotiated based on the church’s unrestricted reserve funds, not annual apportionments. While we do not yet know what amount remains in the church’s reserve at the end of 2020, the reserve was actually higher at the end of 2019 than when the Protocol was negotiated. We know that many of the boards and agencies received hundreds of thousands of dollars in PPP grants from the U.S. government in 2020. We also know that many of the boards and agencies have cut their staffs in order to adjust to lower expected apportionments in the years ahead.

The $27 million allocated to new denominations is not a “gift” from the UM Church to the new churches, but represents a proportional sharing of accumulated resources that were given by faithful United Methodists over the decades who will now serve the Lord in a different Methodist denomination. The money would be paid over four years, lessening the burden in any particular year. Its primary purpose would be to extend the church’s mission of making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world in new Methodist expressions.

There are no compelling reasons at this time to change the financial provisions of the Protocol. And the ability to get the church “unstuck” and moving forward outweighs any potential benefit from having a fight about money on the General Conference floor.

Advantages for Centrists and Progressives

Many centrists and progressives have expressed frustration at their inability to move forward with their agenda for the church. Making the big decision on separation now would enable them to have a majority of the delegates to enact their program at the next in-person General Conference. If the Protocol is not enacted until 2022 or later, they may not be able to make the changes they desire until the 2024 General Conference or potentially even in 2028 (if the Protocol is not enacted until 2024).

Due to the moratorium requested in the Protocol, some annual conferences are currently ordaining practicing gays and lesbians to ministry and allowing same-sex weddings in local churches. However, other annual conferences are not doing so. Passing the Protocol now and subsequently removing restrictions from the Discipline would allow such ordination and weddings in all annual conferences that remain in The United Methodist Church.

Proponents of the Christmas Covenant and the Connectional Table regionalization plan hope to pass changes that would enable each geographic region of the church to govern its affairs in a more semi-autonomous fashion. Because those proposals need a two-thirds vote to pass, it is unlikely they would pass while traditionalists remain in the church. Passing the Protocol now would enable the next in-person General Conference to pass the regionalization plans and secure ratification, so they could be implemented more expeditiously.

Passing the Protocol would allow the centrist and progressive agendas for the church to move forward much more quickly than waiting until the next in-person General Conference. It would also allow the new denominations to form immediately and move forward in the new directions they envision. Most importantly, it would definitively end the theological conflict that is causing the UM Church to be “stuck.” The resulting churches would be truly “unstuck” and empowered to pursue ministry as they feel called by God.

Passing the Protocol is the only way to avoid protracted and expensive litigation, ensure that unfunded pension liabilities will be addressed, and enable the church to move beyond decades of conflict. Our church would be an example to a conflicted world that it is possible to settle disputes amicably and without winners and losers. Jesus said, “Blessed are the peacemakers.” The Protocol is the way to peace in The United Methodist Church.

Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.

The Heart of the Gospel

by Steve | Apr 3, 2021 | In the News

By Thomas Lambrecht — 

“For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time …” (I Corinthians 15:3-6).

These verses contain one of the earliest doctrinal statements of the Christian faith. This passage was formulated and passed on from person to person in the same form as an expression of the Church’s faith.

This week, we are in the midst of remembering and celebrating the events captured in this statement. We observe not only the events themselves, but appropriate their significance for our lives today, 2,000 years later.

The Christian faith is based on historic events that really occurred. There is secular testimony to the reality of these events just a few short decades after they occurred – a more solid corroboration of history than many other ancient events.

Jesus really did live in Roman Palestine. He died a cruel death on a cross and was buried in a tomb. He rose again from the dead in his body.

The truthfulness of the Gospel rests on these events. As Paul goes on to say, “If it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith” (I Corinthians 15:12-14).

The historicity of these events is established in Paul’s mind by the fact that they are attested “according to the Scriptures.” One is reminded of that great passage of the Suffering Servant in Isaiah: “Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isaiah 53:4-6 – read the whole chapter to get the full impact).

Jesus’ suffering and death were predicted in Scripture, as was his bodily resurrection. “Though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days” (Isaiah 53:10). “You will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay” (Psalm 16:10). The Scriptures confirm that these events took place under the hand of God, orchestrated by him for a purpose.

These events’ historicity was also confirmed by the eyewitnesses who saw and testified to what they saw. The eyewitnesses at the cross and the empty tomb. The 500 witnesses to whom Jesus appeared after his resurrection. As the Apostle John put it, “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched – this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it” (I John 1:1-2).

But the events by themselves are not that significant. What matters is why they took place.

We often lament the seemingly meaningless deaths we witness. But Jesus’ death had a purpose. He died “for our sins.” “The Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.”

Our sin irrevocably alienated us from God. We are powerless to reconnect with the Source of life. But Jesus. Jesus came and took our sin upon himself on the cross, putting our sin to death along with his own body.

In accepting the benefits of Christ’s death for ourselves on a personal level, the irrevocable alienation we feel from God is healed. We are reconnected to the Heart of love and the Source of life, not because we earned or deserved it, not because of anything we have done. But because of what Jesus did, our sin is forgiven and our relationship with God is rekindled.

Jesus’ burial had a purpose – to prove the reality of his death and set the stage for his resurrection. It was also “according to the Scriptures.” “He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth” (Isaiah 53:9). He stayed in that tomb until the third day, past the time when the Jews of the period believed that the spirit hovered near the body. He was not merely unconscious in order to spontaneously revive in the cool of the tomb. As the British would say, he was well and truly dead.

Jesus’ resurrection had a purpose. By rising from the dead, Jesus demonstrated his power over death. Death does not have the last word. With Job we can say, “I know that my Redeemer lives, and that in the end he will stand upon the earth. And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God; I myself will see him with my own eyes” (Job 19:25-27). “In Christ all will be made alive” (I Corinthians 15:22). Christ’s resurrection assures us that we, too, will be raised with him to life eternal.

By rising, Jesus showed that his death accomplished its purpose. After all, he could have said he was dying for the sins of the world, but just died like any other man. How do we know his death really did procure our forgiveness from God? His resurrection proved that what he said and did was true and effective. It was a demonstration of God’s power. It was one thing for Jesus to raise Lazarus and the widow’s son from the dead while he was on earth. Both those men died again. It is quite another thing for God to raise Jesus from death forever. Jesus is the first of the resurrected people who will never die again! That places God’s seal of affirmation upon Jesus and his work.

These matters truly are “of first importance.” They are a matter of eternal life or death. They hold the promise of comfort and encouragement in everyday life. They provide solace in the face of earthly death. Most importantly, they enable us to reconnect with the God who made us and loves us. We can recapture the purpose for which God created us. In the space of four days, we recapitulate, re-experience, and reappropriate for ourselves the heart of the Gospel. That is what it is all about!

Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News