by Steve | May 2, 1984 | Archive - 1984
Archive: Francis Asbury
The Man Who Launched American Methodism
By William K. Quick
The famous statue of Francis Asbury in Washington, D.C. depicts a rider in bronze, a weary rider astride a weary horse. Fatigue weighs heavily upon the man. There is a feeling of intense exhaustion. But under the wide brim of the low hat two burning eyes look out. They remind us not of Asbury’s incredible toils but of his boundless vision.
Methodism has produced few giants. Wesley was for real—the most authentic and, without doubt, our greatest. Asbury does not compare in talent or accomplishment to the founder of Methodism. Yet Asbury is equally praiseworthy. His place in American Methodism is unsurpassed.
Born in an obscure English village; sent as a stranger to another shore, without influence, wealth, or position; and called to assume control of a scattered band of churches in an hour of chaos—this man rode to the service of his fellows until thousands came to new life at his word, and all the nation held his name in honor. Mail was delivered to him with the simple address: “The Reverend Francis Asbury, America.”
An entry in Asbury’s Journal dated December 21, 1795, captures the spirit of his vision and his work: “We came down Brunswick County, North Carolina, 20 miles to Normans, within the line of South Carolina.
“This country abounds with bays, swamps and drains; if there were no sinners I would not go along these roads. I am in want of rest and would be glad to better fare. O for patience, faith, courage and every grace! Sometimes I feel as though I could rejoice to die and go home, but at other times the work of God is in my way, and sometimes my own unworthiness.”
Young Asbury was born to common people. His peasant father was a gardener, his mother, actively religious and devout. “My mother used to take me with her to the female meeting,” wrote Asbury, “which she conducted once a fortnight for the purpose of reading Scriptures. Then they thought, Frank might venture a word of exhortation, so after reading I would venture to expand. … ”
Asbury began to hold public meetings at age 17 and was not quite 18 when he started to preach. At about 21 he became an itinerant, supplying for an absent preacher. At the controversial Bristol Conference in 1771, when delegates were agitated over Calvinistic and Arminian theology, John Wesley asked for volunteers: “Our brethren in America call aloud for help. Who are willing to go over and help them?”
Five responded and two were appointed, including Asbury. He left the only home he’d ever known and set sail from Bristol.
At age 26 this studious, introspective lay preacher—with a thoughtfulness tinged with melancholy—wrote in his Journal, “Whither am I going? To the new world? What to do? To gain honor? No, if I know my own heart. To get money? No, I am going to live to God and bring others so to do.”
Great purpose
Those words may sound commonplace and unimpressive. But study them and you see the dominating force of a great purpose. In those days most people came to America either to get money, win honor, or seek adventure. None of these aims were in the mind of Francis Asbury.
He wrote, “If God does not acknowledge me in America, I will soon return to England.” He never returned. He came an Englishman; he became an American.
Arriving in Philadelphia, Asbury grew concerned about the preachers staying in the city. He began riding in the country to “show them the way.” “Gazing around” he called it. He preferred to tackle the back country’s raw, new settlements.
Asbury drove himself through all sorts of weather. And it made him so ill he nearly died. He so weakened his throat that it was repeatedly infected for the rest of his life.
Next he turned South, and the pattern of his arduous lifetime schedule became set. He preached mornings at 5 o’clock, some afternoons, most evenings, and two to three times on Sunday. He held prayer and worship meetings, visited prisoners, preached funerals, and rode 20 to 50 miles a day on horseback.
Crowds came to hear his preaching, and Asbury began to see results. Careless men became new men. Vigorous young converts joined the ranks of Methodist preachers.
However, success did not come cheaply. Listen to him: “Few hearers, few inhabitants, fewer still with any sense of religion” … “wicked people” … “inattentive.”
“At Island Creek I was poorly provided for against the weather, the house unfurnished and, to make matters worse, a horse kicked open the door. I took a cold, had a toothache, with a high fever. … If there were no sinners here, I would not go!”
Asbury suffered from a catalog of ailments: boils, fevers, inflammatory rheumatism, sore throat, weak eyes, bronchitis, asthma, toothache, ulcers in the throat and stomach, neuralgia, intestinal disorders, swollen glands, skin diseases, and finally “galloping consumption.” And all this in a day without aspirin, Anacin, Bufferin, Alka-Seltzer, or Preparation H.
He might have fared better had he chosen to marry. But Asbury was married to Methodism. He explained his choice of celibacy on the grounds of his calling: “I could hardly expect to find a woman with grace enough to enable her to live one week out of 52 with a husband; besides what right has any man to take advantage of the affection of a woman, make her his wife and by voluntary absence subvert the whole order and economy of the marriage state. … It is neither just nor generous.”
This first-elected bishop of American Methodism wanted his preachers to be poor, unworthy, and celibate—like himself. But the system floundered at this last point. Asbury’s preachers were red-blooded creatures who fell in love and wished to marry. They did, at a great rate, and he located them by the hundreds. He recalled one day to a friend, “The women and the devil will get all my preachers.”
Yet, Asbury had love and sympathy for the preachers whose lives and interests so largely were in his hands. He saw them as the fighting force of the church. If they succeeded, the church advanced. If they failed, the church lagged.
He knew all the preachers by name and face, and he made it a regular habit to pray for them. On occasion he’d write to them to advise, suggest, encourage. He worked side-by-side, not above them, not asking for himself any more than they had. He even drew the same salary: $64 per year from 1784 to 1800, then $80 per year until his death.
Potshots
Asbury’s dedication is evident. But he was never without his critics. He was the target of potshots from the beginning, when there were fewer than 1,000 American Methodists and less than a dozen pastors.
His preachers attacked him. Pilmoor complained that Asbury was “bossy.” O’Kelly called him a tyrant and accused him of “popery.” Some called him the biggest villain in America. They said his preaching would empty the church … that he sought power over men to drive and enslave them … that he was a tyrant over the poor preachers, vain and wanting honors, determined to rule or ruin. Even John Wesley accused Asbury of “strutting ” and calling himself a bishop because it was a higher sounding word than superintendent.
If Asbury at times seemed autocratic, it can be argued that this was necessary to bring order and discipline out of a chaotic condition. He was a sensitive person and felt deeply the attacks upon him. So he prayed that he might bear them patiently.
I find it interesting, however, that in Ezekiel Cooper’s funeral sermon for Asbury he said, “Probably in candor, we ought to admit he was more deficient in the exercise of patience than in any of the Christian graces.”
Asbury was no doubt irritable and impatient at times. The best of men are only men at best. Francis Asbury had his defects. Yet he endured what few men could or would have borne. He prayed constantly for patience, faith, courage, and every grace. Sometimes, however, he admitted feeling “as though I could rejoice to die and go home.”
His best purposes, at times, were misrepresented and distorted. The weight of all the church was upon him. Concern for the churches brought restless nights and sorrowful days. What grieved his soul as much as anything was discord and division among the brethren. He writes of one local society where “the leading members cannot speak of each other, or to each other, without bringing heavy accusations.”
He was indignant over the way blacks were treated. He records in 1802 a visit to a church where, “100 blacks [slaves] were standing outside peeping in at the door while the house was half-empty. They were not worthy to come in because they were black. Farewell, farewell to that house forever.” He never returned.
In the years just prior to his death, Asbury increasingly shifted from attempts to emancipate blacks to attempts to evangelize. Still, his early encouragement to the black Methodists was perhaps one of the most socially significant works of his life.
The work of God was so important that no season, no weather stopped him. He pressed on—an itinerant ever in the saddle; a preacher whose one business it was to win men to God. If some didn’t think Bishop Asbury worthy of his title or equal to his influence, let it be said how well aware he was of his own unworthiness. His tender conscience never allowed him to think lightly of his own faults and imperfections.
In his Journal he is constantly taking his spiritual temperature or stretching his soul: “For my unholiness and unfaithfulness, my soul is humbled. … My heart is too cool towards God: I want to feel it like a holy flame.”
Blind hearers
He marveled that God could even use him. Not the most popular Methodist preacher, he never counted himself a skilled pulpiter. He often noted the response to his sermons and admitted they were “dry” or “dull ” or “heavy.” And the laymen sometimes agreed.
Once, because he was sick, Asbury asked Jesse Lee to preach in his place. Then Asbury exhorted following the sermon. The people thought Lee was Asbury and murmured, “The Bishop was fine but we didn’t like what the old man said who spoke afterwards.”
Asbury’s humor seldom comes through in his writings. But once he wrote, “I attempted to preach on the lame and the blind. I fear the sermon was very lame and it may be I left my hearers as I found them—blind.”
Asbury had a sense of unworthiness but it did not dim his vision: “God hath given us hundreds in 1800, why not thousands in 1801, yea, why not a million if we have the faith. Lord increase our faith.”
America has many statues of men on horseback—generals with sword in scabbard or unsheathed and waving aloft, beckoning their followers to advance. Methodism’s Man on Horseback has his sword in hand, too. But it is a different sword: “The Sword of the Spirit—the Word of God.”
Other monuments honor military greatness. The reason for Asbury’s monument is his total dedication to the invincible Christ, proclaimed in the Word of God.
During his 45-year ministry Asbury traveled over 270,000 miles on horseback, preaching 16,425 sermons, conducting 224 annual conferences, and ordaining over 4,000 ministers. When he came to America in 1771 there were fewer than 1,000 Methodists. When he died in 1816 there were 215,000. And by 1850 one out of every three church members in America was Methodist! Truly, as Bishop Hamilton said, “He printed the map of his ministry with the hoofs of his horse.”
President Calvin Coolidge said at the dedication of the Washington statue: “Who shall say where his influence, written upon the immortal souls of men, shall end?”
by Steve | May 1, 1984 | Archive - 1984
Archive: Nobody’s Perfect, Right?
What Wesley taught about Christian Perfection
by William B. Coker
John Wesley referred to the doctrine of Christian perfection as “the grand depositum which God has lodged with the people called Methodists.” Some have called it “Wesley’s heresy.”
The difficulty is with the word perfection. Understood as the state of being without fault or defect (according to Webster), the term is one that can only be applied truthfully to God.
When Wesley used the term perfection to describe a state of grace possible for fallen humanity, it was more than most could accept. In fact, it was more than Wesley himself could allow. So he modified it by explaining that the perfection he preached is not absolute perfection, or angelic perfection, or sinless perfection; rather, it is Christian perfection. Still, many remain uncomfortable with the word.
So why use it? Why not abandon it for some better, less antagonizing term? Because, for Wesley, the word is Scriptural. “Therefore,” he wrote in 1763, “neither you nor I can in conscience object against it, unless we would send the Holy Ghost to school, and teach Him to speak who made the tongue.” Also, the Church has had no qualms about using the word in its liturgy. We pray, “Cleanse the thoughts of our hearts by the inspiration of thy Holy Spirit, that we may perfectly love thee ….”
Nonetheless, Wesley did use other terms to speak of this work, such as perfect love, entire sanctification, and holiness. Whatever the term, Wesley’s teaching emphasized a state of grace beyond justification or the new birth.
It is a level of Christian experience made possible, first, by discovering the depths of carnality in the human heart through the convincing ministry of the Holy Spirit. It is an experience received by the gift of faith through which one believes for the purifying of the heart as a benefit of Christ’s atonement. It is the possibility and the privilege of grace extended to every child of God.
Unrealistic?
Surely, many object, this Wesleyan teaching is unrealistic. Only in the “perfection of burial” (as Calvin would say), only in the holiness of heaven can we be free from carnality!
Much of today’s fundamentalism or evangelicalism is adamant about the unresolved depravity of human nature in this life. And what these theologies have to say about holiness can be understood in terms of unobtainable pursuits. Anyone claiming to have found the grace of God to achieve such a state is either spiritually naive or guilty of spiritual pride.
But for all of-the protests, Wesley’s teaching continues to call us back to what the Scriptures plainly declare: Jesus told His disciples to “be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:48). The promise of the new covenant is “I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness” (Ezekiel 36:25). The standard that God set for His people in both the Old and New Testaments is “be holy, for I am holy” (Leviticus 11:44; I Peter 1:16).
In his Plain Account of Christian Perfection Wesley outlined the spiritual results which characterize this experience:
- purity of intention, dedicating all the life to God;
- all the mind which was in Christ, enabling us to walk as Christ walked;
- the circumcision of the heart from all filthiness, all inward as well as outward pollution;
- a renewal of the heart in the whole image of God, the full likeness of Him that created it;
- loving God with all our heart, and our neighbors as ourselves.
To those who take issue with such a standard, Wesley declared that this doctrine was not his. “It is the doctrine of St. Paul, the doctrine of St. James, of St. Peter, and St. John … I tell you, as plain as I can speak, where and when I found this. I found it in the oracles of God, in the Old and New Testaments; when I read them with no other view or desire but to save my own soul” (Plain Account).
The experience of Christian perfection, as Wesley understood it, was not simultaneous with the new birth, though he agreed there is nothing in the Bible which precludes that. In every person claiming such a state of grace whom he had interviewed, the experience was subsequent to the experience of salvation.
Only having been reconciled to God through Christ “do they see the ground of their heart, which God would not disclose unto them, lest the soul should fail before Him” (Plain Account). Psychologically and spiritually, the new birth seems to be a prerequisite for this deeper working of the Holy Spirit.
To understand Wesley’s teaching at least three factors must be clearly perceived. The first is that Wesley agrees with Luther and Calvin that the problem of inbred sin, or carnality, remains in the born-again Christian. But he disagrees that the child of God must remain a carnal Christian until death.
Believers may, in fact, not avail themselves of the provisions of grace and may not be entirely sanctified until death. Nevertheless, sanctification before death is not only possible but ought to be sought.
Seek it now
Christ died to accomplish our sanctification (Ephesians 5:25-27). He prayed that it might be done (John 17:17-23). The Apostle Paul likewise prayed that it might be so (I Thessalonians 5:23). And the Bible teaches that it may be received through faith (Acts 26:18). Since these things are clearly established, one should seek it now.
A second factor is that this subsequent experience which Wesley called entire sanctification or Christian perfection is a gradual process, usually over a number of years, culminating in an instantaneous cleansing. Though Wesley never tried to prescribe how God must effect His work in the human heart, he did not believe in assembly-line saints or instant perfection. Both the new birth and Christian perfection involve the process of divine/human interaction.
A third factor is that Wesley’s understanding of Christian perfection is a matter of the heart and not of the humanity. He used the Scriptural metaphor of the circumcision of the heart and spoke of perfection in terms of love and intention.
He conceived of no state of grace in which the effects of man’s fallenness in terms of knowledge or judgment or emotions would be eradicated. In speaking of those whose hearts had been circumcised by grace Wesley said, “Even these souls dwell in a shattered body, and are so pressed down thereby, that they cannot exert themselves as they would, by thinking, speaking, and acting precisely right” (Plain Account).
Ignorance and mistakes
Because there is no cleansing from ignorance, mistakes, and the infirmities of the flesh, those whose hearts are made perfect in love continually need Christ as their High Priest. Though Wesley differentiated between mistakes and “sin rightly so called,” he believed that all transgressions of God’s holiness need atonement. Therefore, even the perfect must pray for themselves, “Forgive us our trespasses.”
Furthermore, because perfect love is not absolute perfect love, it should “abound still more and more in real knowledge and all discernment” (Philippians 1:9). Such growth and development, Wesley anticipated, will continue into eternity.
The question remains: Did Wesley allow his idealism to obscure his perception of reality? Did this “man of one Book” develop a theology of Christian experience which is not “according to the book”?
I find three crucial areas in which Wesley speaks to my need in harmony with God’s revealed truth. The first is in the matter of sin. That which separates us from God and hides His face from us (Isaiah 59:1-2) is both a matter of our actions and of the disposition of our hearts. In my case, as I expect is true of all of us, the Holy Spirit first confronted me with my sinful acts. Then it was not until I had repented of my sins and had been brought into a personal relationship with Christ that I began to understand the real problem lay much deeper.
Bishop R.S. Foster described such an awakening in his book Christian Purity. Speaking of one genuinely converted he wrote: “But at length a new occasion for disquiet arises. The purified spiritual vision discovers a great depth of iniquity within; and the quickened and tender conscience is convicted of and pained by deep, inwrought pollution.” As Bill Bright and Campus Crusade acknowledged, the “Four Spiritual Laws” must have a sequel in “The Spirit-filled Life” if we are to be more than carnal Christians.
Idle words
Many of God’s people have discovered that His promise to “forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (I John 1:9) is more than idle words. Clean hands and pure hearts are still the Biblical standard.
A second Wesleyan emphasis which I find to be thoroughly Scriptural is that of holiness. It sounds impressively humble to disclaim holiness as a present reality and to affirm one’s unending quest for such a state of grace. But an unbiased reading of the Bible will reveal that God’s commands and promises for holiness are not wistful words about the sweet by and by. God clearly instructed Israel that they were to be a holy people.
Paul told the Thessalonians he was anxious to return to their city that he might supply what was lacking in their faith. He prayed that the Lord would “establish [their] hearts unblameable in holiness before our God and Father” (I Thessalonians 3:13).
Peter instructed the temporary residents of the Dispersion to whom he was writing that they were not to “be conformed to [their] former lusts,” but rather they were to “be holy … in all [their] behavior” as the One who had called them is holy (I Peter 1:14, 15). In spite of all arguments of our unworthiness, holiness is not only God’s expectation for His people, it is His expressly commanded purpose. And that in the context of our humanity!
God’s standard for holiness is demanding, for sure. Some Christians have even described it so loftily that it is beyond reality. But perhaps we should ask whether our portrayal of an unreal, angelic sanctity might not be a camouflage for second-rate commitment and third-rate spiritual disciplines.
The third Scriptural emphasis for which I am indebted to Wesley is that of Christian perfection. Wesley cannot be ignored when he points out that the term is Biblical. Even our attempts to translate the idea as “maturity” do not cover the Biblical occurrences. What version reads, “Be mature as your Father in heaven is mature”?
Without defect
Our problem is that we are functioning with a philosophical definition of perfection, that is, “without flaw or defect ” when in truth such a definition does not fit the Biblical usage. The idea of “completeness” more adequately interprets Scriptural use. That is why Wesley could say that all he meant by Christian perfection is “to love God with all one’s heart, mind, soul, and strength.”
Wesley’s plan for the Methodist societies was to thrust the newly converted Christians immediately into the quest for wholeness of heart—to assist them to believe that God could and to pray that God would cleanse their hearts so they might perfectly love Him. Then, if by faith they came into the blessing of a pure heart, they were to understand that only by a moment-by-moment relationship with their Lord, living in complete dependence upon His grace, could they be sustained in such a holy oneness.
Who is to say that such a Biblical standard of grace is not really possible? The founder of Methodism certainly believed that it is.
by Steve | Mar 5, 1984 | Archive - 1984
Archive: Dr. Jesus Moves in at Atlanta’s Ben Hill Church
By James S. Robb
March/April 1984
Good News
If your soul is sick, maybe you’d better go see Dr. Jesus. That’s the advice they’re offering these days at Ben Hill United Methodist Church in Atlanta.
With the sanctuary jammed to capacity on a Sunday morning, the pastor, Dr. Cornelius Henderson, drives home the idea of Christ as the Great Physician.
“There is One who never makes an error,” asserts the preacher, “never has made an error, never will make an error – Dr. Jesus! I’m glad we’ve got a doctor like Jesus in the building right now.
“When it comes to sin and sickness, you just can’t heal yourself. Right now you can be healed in spirit, and soul, and body.”
Henderson thunders down his point, “Jesus is here right now.”
The membership at Ben Hill is expanding so fast the congregation recently doubled the size of its sanctuary.
Last May, the church brought in its 3,000th member, an enrollment 10 times the 1975 figure. That was the year Henderson came to Ben Hill as pastor. Previously he had been a staff expert on urban ministries for the General Board of Discipleship in Nashville.
For several years he had traveled around the country offering this simple formula for effective urban ministry: (1) “Keep Jesus Christ in the center of one’s ministry.” (2) “Love and serve the people and take advantage of a dedicated and committed laity.” (3) “Develop dynamic worship services that speak to a broad range of constituents in multiple services.”
Henderson came to Atlanta in 1975 intending to put these principles into practice.
One thing he learned at the board was to let his church be itself instead of trying to imitate the “majority culture.” He explains his idea on the subject. “We are committed to the United Methodist Church without apology. But a black tradition is also a part of our legacy that we do not ever intend to abandon.”
Sunday services at Ben Hill confirm the pastor’s words. The week Good News was there the 8:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. services together stretched out to four-and-a-half hours. There’s always something happening. The music and preaching dominate services. Numerous choirs (Ben Hill has 10 good ones) and instruments set the stage for worship. Nothing seems to be done in a hurry. And the people obviously love it.
Henderson has put his multiple services principle into use at Ben Hill. The early service is mainstream Wesleyan in its emphasis, the later service more freewheeling.
‘‘On any street corner in America, in any gathering of black people,” asserted Henderson, “94-99 percent of those people already [ consider themselves] Christians. If you ask them, they are not un-churched and they are not un-Christian.”
But Henderson notes that many of those people have no real Christian commitment. “I explain to them that going to a baseball stadium does not make you a baseball player any more than going to church makes you a Christian. One has to accept the Lordship of Christ and commit his or her life totally to him every day.”
The figure of Jesus
More than anything else Ben Hill is a Christ-centered church. From the music to the sermon and everything in between, the figure of Jesus dominates the worship. When Henderson read the vows of membership to the nine new persons joining the church the Sunday Good News was there, he left no doubt about where their loyalty should lie. After warmly embracing each one, he asked, “Will you be loyal to Jesus Christ? He’s first.”
Henderson says, “The black church as a whole is committed to the absolute sovereignty of the Lordship of Christ. As an ethnic group we particularly identify with the sufferings of Christ.” As a result, the monthly communion service is one of the best attended. “We identify with the suffering, with the blood, the atoning blood of Jesus Christ,” he explained.
Ben Hill Church is worth looking at for more than one reason. Obviously any congregation that can go from 300 to 3,000 members in eight years is doing a lot of things right. More amazing yet, the church experienced that growth after recovering from a near-complete “exodus of white Methodist Christians,” as Pastor Henderson describes the congregation’s changing ethnic makeup.
Perhaps most interesting is the speed with which Henderson has been able to attract the leaders of Atlanta into Ben Hill membership.
“We have in the congregation a number of persons I sometimes refer to as ‘magnetic evangelists,’” Henderson said. ‘‘These are persons that because of personality, because of the position they occupy in the city, because of the leadership role they play in Atlanta, they can attract and do attract other people.”
Among the prominent members at Ben Hill are Dr. Elias Blake, Jr., president of UM-related Clark College; James Q. Davis, vice-president of Georgia Power Company; Crawford Russell, retired Colonel, U.S. Army; Tom Cordy, president of the Atlanta Mechanical Contractors; and Carl Ware, the first black vice-president of the Coca-Cola Company.
“These are spirit-filled Christian men and women who have that kind of glow that Christ always gives,” Henderson said. “They in turn touch other persons.”
Leaders attract leaders. And Ben Hill, as a result, has become prime ground for bringing such people to Christ.
Traditionally, leaders of the black church have played leadership roles in their communities. Henderson continues this tradition. He is active in the Atlanta Urban League, the NAACP, the John Holland Boys’ Club, and other organizations.
He is also chairman of a group known as Concerned Black Clergy. “The name is extremely misleading,” he said, since both lay and clergy, blacks and whites are involved. The group’s aim is to provide food and shelter to those in need. They also have a program of career counseling.
From the pulpit Henderson sets the record straight about his beliefs on social action. “Pie in the sky is all right; but we need a chicken in the kitchen, and a ham where I am.” His involvement in Concerned Black Clergy and other civic groups is an expression of that conviction.
But he has another reason for his involvement. “The involvement of the black minister in the organizations of a given community is an indispensable tool for effective evangelism,” he said.
Even though his congregation is obviously prosperous, Henderson is the only full-time minister assigned to the church. However, he does have the assistance of nine part-time ministers, some of whom attend seminary in town.
For eight years, the United Methodist Church has given special attention to ethnic minority churches through the church-wide missional priority. Henderson thinks some new approaches must be tried if the denomination is to make real progress reaching the black community.
Henderson believes the key is to use methods tailored specifically for each group. “When you’re fishing,” he said, “you don’t fish for all fish with the same bait and in the same depths of water. I don’t think we’ve been intelligent, well, scientific enough in seeking to address the particular needs and likings and aspirations” of black men and women who need the Gospel.
“We need indigenous worship and indigenous leadership” he said. “We can’t expect folks to travel all across the city. If there are people in the ghetto who need the Lord Jesus Christ – and they do – then we have to provide ample opportunity.”
Henderson noted that poor people don’t always have “reliable transportation of their own” to get to church. Once they arrive, “they have to have something that is very accessible and it has to be on their level so they can understand, appreciate, and enjoy.”
He also believes minority clergy must be moved less frequently. “It is sometimes a bit difficult to maintain an image in the community and a position of stability if you’re only there a couple of years,” Henderson stated.
The large majority of pastors serving black UM congregations are still lay preachers. Henderson thinks these people need a great deal more affirmation and attention. “We cannot expect the [ordained] preacher to be the sole proclaimer of the Gospel of Jesus Christ,” he said. “The more people involved, the more quickly the message will be spread.”
No such trouble
“At the same time,” he cautioned, “I don’t want to get away from the support that is needed for the [ordained] pastors of churches that we already have. Because if these men and women are unhappy and underpaid, if the parsonages that exist for ethnic pastors aren’t drastically upgraded, then you are going to continue to reap a whirlwind of negativism.”
Fortunately there’s no such trouble at Ben Hill these days. Last year they burned the mortgage on the original sanctuary. They also built on the $500,000 addition and started adding their next 1,000 members.
And they heard a lot of great preaching.
“Is there no balm in Gilead?” Henderson paraphrased the old spiritual to his crowded congregation.
“If not in the church, where? God sent his Word as healing balm. The Lord’s drugstore is always open.”
He raises his voice. “Healing in the blood. Liberated by the blood of Jesus. But you have to come to the fountain to get it. Is there a physician there? – Dr. Jesus!”
When this article was published in 1984, James S. Robb was associate editor of Good News.
Endnote: Dr. Cornelius Henderson served the congregation at Ben Hill United Methodist Church in Atlanta twice: (1976-1986, 1992-1993). Under his leadership, the membership increased during his first tenure from 400 to over 4,500 members. During his second tenure as pastor the church membership later rose up to 16,700, making it at that time the largest predominantly African-American United Methodist congregation in the world. From 1993-1996, he was President/Dean of Gammon Theological Seminary before becoming the Resident Bishop of the Florida Annual Conference of The United Methodist Church. Bishop Henderson died in 2000 at the age of 66. He had been diagnosed with myeloma, the most common form of bone marrow cancer.
by Steve | Mar 2, 1984 | Archive - 1984
Archive: Abortion in America
By James V. Heidinger II
When abortion was legalized in 1973, many Americans—Christians included—were either neutral or in favor of the Supreme Court’s decision. Now, some 15 million abortions later, many of those same people feel it is time to rethink the issue. In this article James Heidinger looks at where we are today concerning abortion in America, how we got there, the legal battle, and how the United Methodist Church is responding.
Where Are We Today?
On January 22, 1973, just 11 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its controversial Roe vs. Wade decision making abortion legal in America.
Since then, the number of abortions performed each year has skyrocketed. One in every four children conceived is now aborted by legal medical means. An estimated 1.5 to 1.6 million legal abortions are now performed annually. Abortion has become the most common surgical procedure in America.
The court’s decision has had a dramatic impact on how Americans view abortion. At the time of the decision, most Americans considered abortion cautiously, as a necessary evil. Soon many began to see it as a moral or religious question which should be left up to the individual. And finally more and more Americans came to view it as a positive good, a constitutional or human right that deserves public support. Millions of Americans today accept abortion casually, as one more means of birth control.
As a result, abortion has reached epidemic proportions in America. Our rate of abortion has increased 10-fold over the past decade. Some major American cities report that abortions now exceed live births. Approximately one in ten American women of reproductive age have had at least one abortion.
On the heels of this epidemic has come a cheapening of human life. Reports of fetal experimentation and infanticide are on the increase. The case of Infant Doe brought the matter to public attention. That was the case in which a child born with congenital defects died because needed medical treatment and nourishment were withheld.
In the short time since abortion was legalized, some in the medical practice have moved from using extraordinary measures to save handicapped children, to no measures, to positive action to destroy human life (i.e., administering a sedative to a newborn so it does not feed and thus dies of starvation).
But doesn’t the medical profession oppose such practice? Not always, not anymore.
The July 1983 issue of Pediatrics, the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said in its lead editorial:
We can no longer base our ethics on the idea that human beings are a special form of creation, made in the image of God. … Only the fact that the defective infant is a member of the species homo sapiens leads it to be treated differently from the dog or pig. Species membership alone, however, is not morally relevant.
In addition to infanticide, increasing cases of euthanasia or mercy-killing are reported. Some elderly in nursing homes supposedly lack a “meaningful life,” so their lives are ended by the withholding of needed medical treatment.
A disturbing aspect of all this for United Methodists is that our church has done little to help stem this life-cheapening tide. In fact, the church may have contributed to the problem by its participation in the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights—an advocacy group supporting the rights of women to choose abortion.
How Did We Get Here?
Until the 1960s there was little support for abortion, except in those rare instances when the mother’s life was in danger because of the pregnancy. Then came the urban unrest of the ’60s, rapid technological advance, the Vietnam War, the sexual revolution, as well as the widespread dissemination of the birth-control pill.
As women pressed for political and economic equality, they also felt they should exert new control over their own reproductive destinies. Increasingly, abortion seemed to offer a ready answer to the problems of unwanted children, overpopulation, child abuse, juvenile delinquency, and welfare costs.
Also, in the early ’70s, a new ethic emerged among some in the medical profession. This new ethic moved away from the traditional Western view that every human life has intrinsic worth. Doctors moved toward a more utilitarian “quality of life” ethic that sought the greatest good for the greatest number, even if that meant some individuals must be sacrificed in the public interest.
Thus, the groundwork had been laid to prepare Americans for the sweeping changes Roe vs. Wade would bring to the practice of abortion.
Another factor in bringing us to our present dilemma is that Americans, including many evangelical Christians, were not prepared to exert the mental and spiritual energy needed to challenge the faulty arguments of the pro-abortion movement. Consider several examples.
First, the pro-abortion movement has insisted that a woman has a right to do as she chooses with her own body. That sounded logical and self-evident when we first began to hear it. But it’s simply not true. A woman does not have the right to commit suicide, to appear nude in public places, to willfully spread a communicable disease, or to take thalidomide while pregnant. The freedom of one person always ends where the freedom of another begins.
Or again, we were told prior to Roe vs. Wade that the availability of abortion would reduce child abuse. But child abuse has climbed by nearly 400 percent since 1973! A recent study of some 500 battered children revealed that 90 percent of these children were the result of planned pregnancies.
Another popular argument from the pro-abortion folks was that abortion would reduce the number of illegal abortions. That, too, sounded good. But the facts dispute such claims, according to U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop. Koop attests that in every country where abortion on demand has become a legal right, including America, illegal abortions have increased rather than decreased.
And how often we have heard about our duty to protect the unwanted or deformed infant from entering a hostile world. We should distinguish, however, between an unwanted pregnancy and an unwanted child. Among Swedish women who delivered after considering abortion, 84 percent were glad they had not terminated the pregnancy. Some declared it was inconceivable that they could have considered such an option.
The pro-abortion camp continues to rely, for its argument, on the few cases which are admittedly difficult. However, these hard cases (involving rape, incest, or possible loss of life to the mother) account for only 2-3 percent of all abortions.
To argue that anti-abortion measures are an attack against the poor is another smokescreen. Abortion is not a rich vs. poor issue. Of women seeking abortions, 70 percent are white, 79 percent are unmarried, and 75 percent have graduated from either high school or college.
Finally, after 11 years and over 1 5 million abortions, Americans, both religious and non-religious, are beginning to realize they have been sold a bill of goods by the pro-abortion movement. They are discovering that the arguments for abortion on demand are weak in logic, based primarily on emotion, and utilize half-truths that don’t stand under careful scrutiny.
The Legal Battle
The legal issues in the abortion controversy are of vital importance to all Americans, especially to Christians. Why? Because the law is a primary teacher of values. Since the Roe vs. Wade decision of 1973, millions have concluded that abortion is right because it has been made legal.
With this decision seven Supreme Court justices imposed their views on 220 million Americans. In his dissent, Justice White strongly criticized the abortion ruling as an exercise in “raw judicial power.” Noted legal scholars such as John Hart Ely of Harvard Law School and Archibald Cox of Watergate fame have found the reasoning of the court to be an embarrassment.
The court made a serious mistake when it first considered, then decided to reject, the precedent of the Hippocratic Oath. The Hippocratic ethic, which opposed abortion, is at the heart of all medical ethics. It came to be accepted not only by Jews and Christians, but also by Arabs, medieval doctors, men of the Renaissance, Enlightenment scholars, and scientists of the 19th century.
For the courts to rule in contradiction to the ethic of the Hippocratic Oath concerning abortion was, says Harold O.J. Brown, to reject “the very heart of our ethical tradition, of principles common not merely to Judeo-Christian religion in the narrow sense, but to Western civilization as a whole” (“What the Supreme Court Didn’t Know,” Human Life Review, Spring, 1975, p. 13).
Since 1973 the court has made other rulings concerning abortion. In 1976 it ruled that neither husbands nor parents could hinder their wives’ or daughters’ decisions to get abortions.
In 1979 the court ruled that unmarried, minor females could obtain abortions without parental consent. That same year, it ruled that the definition of “viability” would be left with the physician.
In the summer of 1983 the court, in a 6-3 ruling, struck down an array of local legislative restrictions on access to abortion. These included the Akron, Ohio, ordinance that had been a model for requirements in some 15 states. That same summer, the Hatch-Eagleton Amendment, which would have allowed the states to restrict abortions, was voted down 50-49, falling far short of the two-thirds approval needed for a constitutional amendment.
In October 1983 Congress passed the Hyde Amendment which banned federal payments for Medicaid abortions. That is expected to remain in effect at least through 1984.
What efforts to change the legal status of abortion might we expect in the near future? Most Christian analysts do not expect a constitutional amendment to emerge in this present Congress.
Congress could attempt to formulate legislation that would recognize the unborn as a person having legal rights. Such legislation, were it to pass, would bring Congress into conflict with Roe vs. Wade.
Another possibility could be an appeal, on the personhood of the fetus, from a state supreme court. On August 28, 1983, for example, the Springfield, Missouri News Leader reported a decision by the Missouri Supreme Court stating that a fetus is a “person” and that “the fetus itself has an interest in being protected from injury before birth.” Such a decision could be appealed to the Supreme Court.
However, the best chance for change may come when new justices are appointed to the Supreme Court. Whoever is elected president this November could have the opportunity of appointing several justices. A new court could vote to reverse Roe vs. Wade.
How the Church Is Responding
The sad truth is that United Methodism is doing very little to help curb the abortion epidemic in America. On the contrary, we may well be fueling the crisis. Our denomination has been involved in and helped fund the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights, which is housed in the Methodist Building in Washington, D.C.
Our Social Principles statement on abortion, as generally understood, is “pro-choice.” (The Social Principles found in the Book of Discipline represent the attempt of General Conference to speak to the social issues in our contemporary world.)
In Para. 71.G, which deals with abortion, we find the phrase, “In continuity with past Christian teaching,” which is followed two sentences later with the obviously pro-choice statement, “We support the legal option of abortion under proper medical procedures.”
But if, in fact, our denominational stand is pro-choice, we are not “in continuity with past Christian teaching.”
We are not in continuity, for example, with the unified voice of the early church fathers. Nearly unanimous in their condemnation of abortion, they referred to it as killing and murder. Such statements may be found in the Didache. Letter to Barnabas. Tertullian’s Apology, Clement’s The Teacher, and others.
A later writer of the early church, Caesarius of Aries wrote, “No woman should take any drug to produce an abortion, because she will be placed before the judgment seat of Christ, whether she had killed an already born child or a conceived one.” Such statements are found repeatedly in the writings of the church fathers.
Neither is the pro-choice position in continuity with the more recent giants of the church like the late Dietrich Bonhoeffer, theologian and pastor Helmut Thielicke, and United Methodist theologian Albert C. Outler. All affirm the humanity of the unborn child.
Another giant in the church today is Dr. Paul Ramsey. A UM layman and professor at Princeton University, Ramsey is perhaps the preeminent ethicist in America. He claims that pro-choice is not the official position of the church as presented in the Social Principles statement.
Ramsey should know. He is the author of the original Social Principles statement that came before General Conference in Atlanta in 1972.
Ramsey included in his version the important phrase (which is still there), “the sanctity of unborn human life.” Unfortunately, an additional statement calling for removal of abortion from the criminal code was introduced as an amendment from the floor. It was done hurriedly and with too little debate. And it passed.
That amendment, says Ramsey, contradicts the meaning of his language which accords life to the unborn. That action, Ramsey claims, has left United Methodism with a confusing and contradictory statement on abortion.
Ramsey says, ” If there is unborn human life, and if there indeed is a ‘mother,’ then abortion is not like any other ‘standard medical practice.’ Not until euthanasia or ‘neo-naticide’ becomes ‘standard.’ ” He concludes, “And life-and-death decisions involving lives possessing sanctity have never before in the history of our civil community been believed to be a proper subject for purely privatized choices” (Protecting the Unborn, Testimony before Senate Judiciary Committee, 1974).
It is sobering to realize that though the intent of the author of the Social Principles statement was anything but pro-choice, United Methodist leaders have taken that statement and employed it as the basis for their pro-choice position.
The United Methodist Church’s pro-choice advocacy amidst the rampant epidemic of abortion in our country is a rebuke to us all.
We have crusaded against Nestle’s infant formula to save children in Third World countries. But we have not raised any significant voice of alarm over 1.5 million abortions per year as well as reports of infanticide and euthanasia. Instead, the church has looked with condescension upon those who have raised voices of protest.
United Methodists could play a significant role in changing the moral climate in America concerning abortion. But first we will have to be convinced ourselves that abortion is morally wrong, a few hard cases notwithstanding.
We must face squarely the fact that most abortions today are for convenience, economic reasons, or to prevent a handicapped child from having life.
We must also recognize that a society has a fundamental responsibility to protect the life and freedom of those who cannot protect themselves. A society also has the obligation to protect itself against policies which, if allowed to continue, could eventually destroy it.
Our present policy of wholesale abortion in America could do exactly that.
by Steve | Mar 1, 1984 | Archive - 1984
Archive: I Changed My Mind About Abortion
By Beverly A. McMillan, M.D., Former Abortion Clinic Director
Abortion – right or wrong?
The question has been tossed around by everyone from the high-school debate team to the network news commentator. But for those millions of Americans who face the decision of whether or not to end an unwanted pregnancy, abortion is much more than a topic for discussion. It is, literally, a matter of life and death. As an obstetrician-gynecologist I had my own personal struggle. My first encounter with the problem occurred in 1969. I was spending six months at Cook County Hospital in Chicago as part of my Mayo Clinic residency. I spent six weeks of this time on a ward for infected obstetric patients. My first night on call I naively thought my patients would come from the surgical wards where infection problems sometimes occur following Caesarian deliveries. I soon found out differently.
That night and every night I was on call, from 15 to 25 women were admitted to my ward with fever, bleeding, and tender, enlarged uteruses. Many of these patients were desperately ill. All night long my intern and I would admit them, start them on I.V. fluids and antibiotics, and try to keep them alive until morning. If they made it, we would take them to a treatment room and do a D&C, without anesthesia, to clean out the infected tissue. These women were the victims of Chicago’s back-alley abortionists.
Welcoming abortion
By the time my six-week stint was finished, I had become an abortionist by conviction. I concluded that if women could be so desperate about an unwanted pregnancy that they were willing to risk a bungled illegal abortion, and if orthodox medicine had the technology to perform safe abortions, then my profession should face its social responsibilities. We should offer safe abortions to such women.
When the 1973 Supreme Court decision (Roe vs. Wade) which legalized abortion was announced, I welcomed it. I was in private practice in Richmond, Kentucky, by that time. And since abortions were now legal, my partner and I bought a suction machine and began discreetly to perform first trimester abortions in our office.
In the fall of 1974 my family and I moved to Jackson, Mississippi. This was a difficult move for me since I had no family or friends in the area. I opened my office for private practice in January of 1975 and began a rather bleak year.
One bright spot came when I met a group of concerned citizens and clergy who wanted to organize a clinic offering safe abortions on an out-patient basis to the Jackson area. In fact the clinic was ready to open, except for one thing. The organizers had not found a physician willing to face the social stigma of being labeled an abortionist. Exercising the courage of my convictions, I volunteered and opened the first legal abortion clinic in the state.
I had come a long way since my girlhood days. I had been brought up a Roman Catholic and attended parochial schools through the eighth grade. I had certainly been exposed to a pro-life view during those formative years. But during my sophomore year in premedical studies at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, I confronted the conflict between my Catholic values and the lifestyle of the world.
I made a decision to leave behind Christianity and the claims of the Catholic Church on my life. I then went through medical school and my postgraduate training as an agnostic, believing in Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and in myself as the only one to whom I was ultimately accountable.
I had come to Jackson still an agnostic. In January of 1976, as I reviewed the year, I could see my new practice was going to be successful. In fact, as I reflected on my life I felt I had accomplished everything I had ever set out to attain: an apparently stable marriage, three healthy children, a growing medical practice, a nice house, a new car, and all the clothes I could wear. With all this in my favor, I was alarmed to find myself depressed and even contemplating suicide.
In desperation I sought out something to read to help change my attitude. By chance I happened on The Power of Positive Thinking by Dr. Norman Vincent Peale in a local bookstore.
The book was interesting and encouraging to me until I reached the end of the first chapter. There Dr. Peale listed 20 things to do to develop a positive attitude. I had no problem with any of these suggestions except for number seven which asked me to affirm ten times daily, “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.” I felt betrayed and frustrated because I could not repeat the verse, nor could I finish the book.
A strange relief
Finally, after struggling over a week with that verse, as I was driving to work one morning I just gave up and said out loud, “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.”
At that time I had no vocabulary to describe what happened, but I suddenly felt a presence that was so real I burst into tears. I felt my heart almost crack inside me with a strange relief and joy. I must have repeated the verse over a hundred times that day.
I was able to finish reading Dr. Peale’s book and then, as it recommended, I bought a Bible and for the first time read the New Testament from beginning to end. As I read the Bible over the following months, I felt more and more uncomfortable about performing abortions. I think I was like many Christians in that I felt somehow God did not approve of abortion, but I knew of no hard facts or Scriptures to back up my feelings. Nevertheless, I stopped performing abortions personally in 1977, although I would continue as Medical Director of the clinic until 1978.
I began to attend church for the first time in the spring of 1977, and by December of that year I knew God was leading me to be baptized and to identify with His Church. Yet I felt a certain incongruity about a Christian calling herself Medical Director of an abortion clinic. I felt I must go one way or the other. When I was baptized and joined the church I resigned my position at the clinic. I’ve never regretted that decision.
As I grew in my understanding of God and His Word, I discovered why I had felt uncomfortable with my pro-abortion stand. For the past three-and-a-half years I have been actively involved in speaking to churches, civic organizations, and schools about the abortion situation in the United States. I speak from the perspective of the pro-life position, because I believe Scripture shows us that God considers unborn human life to be valuable and worthy of our efforts to protect it.
Personal accountability
Of the 1.5 to 2 million abortions performed annually in the United States, at least 95 percent of them are performed for reasons of convenience, usually as an attempt to hide or remove the consequences of sexual sin. This matter of personal accountability is one that the Church needs to be addressing today as the fundamental cause of the abortion problem.
The remaining five percent of abortions are performed for other reasons such as rape, incest, medical illness in the mother, and to prevent the births of “imperfect children.” Such cases are more difficult for people who want ethical answers to the abortion problem. But God’s Word is not silent in these areas either.
In His image
I believe the basic principle which underlies God’s pro-life position is contained in Genesis 9:6, “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man.” Our basic worth sterns from the fundamental fact of our creation in God’s image, and this creation I believe starts from conception.
In Psalm 139, which I like to call the Pregnant Woman’s Psalm, God voices His care and concern for the unborn: “For Thou didst form my inward parts; Thou didst weave me in my mother’s womb. I will give thanks to Thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; wonderful are Thy works, and my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from Thee, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth. Thine eyes have seen my unformed substance; and in Thy book they were all written, the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them” (vv. 13-16).
Not only does God know and care about human life in the womb, but such life has a definite spiritual dimension. In the first chapter of Jeremiah, when the prophet receives his call, God says, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations” (v. 5). So the Bible indicates that a person can have a spiritual call on his life before he is born.
For Methodists, whose heritage includes the Wesleyan doctrine of sanctification, Luke 1:13-15 is a significant pro-life passage. Here Zacharias he is to be the father of John the Baptist. “But the angel said to him, ‘Do not be afraid, Zacharias, for your petition has been heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you will give him the name John. And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth. For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and he will drink no wine or liquor; and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, while yet in his mother’s womb.'” So in at least one instance, the spiritual blessing of being filled with the Holy Spirit occurred to an unborn human being.
But what strikes me the hardest on this point is the Incarnation itself. The Gospel of Matthew tells us that Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit. “Behold an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, ‘Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for that which has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit’ ” (Matthew 1:20).
Unjust punishment
I remember meditating on this verse and asking myself, What does conceived by the Holy Spirit mean? As an obstetrician-gynecologist I certainly knew how every other human being in the world was conceived—a sperm and an egg united and a new cell was formed which contained all that would become the developed human being. One day it occurred to me that what may have happened in the Incarnation was that the Holy Spirit took on the form of a human sperm and fertilized the egg in Mary’s body. From this fertilization the God-man was conceived. If Jesus Christ Himself would sanctify human life by identifying with it from its beginnings at conception, what then should our attitude be toward unborn human life?
The problem of rape and incest is a difficult area, for many people view continuing the pregnancy as an unjust form of punishment of a woman who has already been abused. However, the circumstance of the conception in such a case does not make the resulting child any less a person made in God’s image. The loving thing to do in this circumstance is to offer the woman love and support, both physically and emotionally, helping her through the difficult pregnancy and the decisions about whether to keep the child or place it for adoption. Such a solution is not an easy one, but I believe it is the right one.
In the case of medical disease where the mother’s health may be worsened by pregnancy, I would state from a physician’s point of view that these cases are very few. The correct moral decision in this dilemma reflects respect for both the life of the mother and the child, both of whom are created in God’s image.
“Imperfect” children
As the pregnancy progresses, the child’s chance for survival outside the womb increases. When the mother’s condition has reached the point where continuation of the pregnancy is truly dangerous to her health, such as in heart disease or when treatment that is going to be harmful to the baby is necessary, then an early delivery should be accomplished. The premature baby should then be given every benefit of medical science. In this way respect is shown for both lives.
In the case of so-called “imperfect” children, we are dealing with the ability of medical science to search out and destroy infants who have medical or genetic problems that may leave them mentally retarded or physically handicapped for life. The ethical question of what to do with these imperfect children is certainly addressed in the Bible. After all, we are all God’s imperfect children. We are marred by sin. We are not the kind of children God wanted. We hurt Him and disappoint Him. God in fact has a perfect right to destroy us.
But God’s response to His imperfect children was to love us, to send His own Son to suffer and die on the cross for us, and through His blood to adopt us back into His family. The Scriptures challenge us to treat our own imperfect children in a similar, loving way.
If abortion on demand were done away with tomorrow, how would I as a Christian confront the problem of women wounded in the illegal abortion mills? I know I would again be saddened by their plight, but I would not be outraged. I think the entire Christian community must be prepared to respond to the needs of these women with unwanted pregnancy, not by ostracizing them, but by going to their side to help them through the pregnancy and through the medical expenses and social problems engendered by the pregnancy. The alternative to abortion is an expensive one, but a morally correct one.
Dealing with guilt
Finally, what of those who must deal with the guilt of abortion? The good news that makes the Gospel so relevant today is that God forgives. I know from personal experience that the blood of Jesus can cover the sin of abortion.
In my own life I once thought abortion was a good thing, the answer to many social and medical problems I saw around me. Now I know that “there is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death” (Proverbs 14:12). When I understood the sanctity of unborn human life, I changed my mind about abortion.
Dr. Beverly Smith McMillan has a private practice of obstetrics and gynecology in Jackson, Mississippi. She is married and has three sons and a stepdaughter.