by Steve | Feb 18, 2022 | Front Page News
Christians and the News Media (Part 2) – By Thomas Lambrecht
This is the second in a series of blogs looking at how Christians can view and interact with various forms of news media. When I was growing up, there were three networks, whose nightly news programs controlled the narrative. The public station had more in-depth analysis that tended to be more liberal back then. Major newspapers like the New York Times and the Washington Post were also highly influential, and their news stories often made the jump to the network programs.
Today, the media landscape is much more complicated, with all the previous news channels, plus dozens more on cable and the Internet. Social media adds the ability to amplify certain viewpoints and find sources of information that may or may not be credible. Most of the current news channels have a point of view that they are promoting, which influences what they report and how they report it.
This series of blogs is based on the book, Reading the Times: A Literary and Theological Inquiry into the News, by Jeffrey Bilbro. In the midst of the emotional and divisive atmosphere in our country, it can be helpful to back up and look at the bigger picture from a Christian perspective. Part 1 spoke about the question, to what do we pay attention? It surveyed the problem of paying attention to too much, leading to a hardening of our hearts and a reduced ability to care about and respond to the information that we hear or read. This of course has a spiritual dimension, as a hardened heart is much less responsive to the working of the Holy Spirit.
Today’s blog looks at another aspect of the problem, which is the filter that we use to view the news. Bilbro speaks of it in terms of time: cyclical vs. narrative time. Through most of history, the “news” consisted of what happened in relation to the king/ruler and priest/religious authority. In cyclical time, dates were figured based on the years of the king’s reign. The actions of the religious authority often determined the direction that the rulers and the society would take.
What the rulers and religious authorities did was considered “news,” while the things that happened to and with regular people was considered “gossip.” Only the former was considered important. A person would never find out about the latter unless they were in the word-of-mouth network where this “gossip” was shared. (Of course today, we have Facebook, Twitter, Nextdoor, and countless other apps that deluge us with this kind of “gossip,” which leads to the problem we talked about in Part 1 regarding paying attention to too much.)
In our own media environment, the cyclical filter results in our focus on celebrities, in addition to rulers (government officials) and religious authorities (popes and leading clergy). Many people fixate on what these celebrities (be they politicians, actors, musicians, athletes, or influencers) are saying and doing. Is this really the most important news of our day?
The other filter that is used to view news is the narrative filter. The people telling the news have a story or narrative that they are trying to tell, and they couch the news in ways that support that narrative. Much of the polarization in our country today is the result of conflicting narratives about who we are as a country and what we aspire to be.
News tellers formulate their telling of the news to support their own narrative and deconstruct the narratives of their opponents. The narrative determines what news is covered and how it is presented. News is no longer objective, but becomes a tool in the service of a cause. In the process, truth is sacrificed for the sake of promoting a narrative. And because it is a human narrative, it is partly false and incomplete (no matter what narrative “side” one is talking about). Yet, because the narrative acts as a filter, the narrative cannot experience the correction and refinement that comes from taking account of reality. As Christians, are we to disregard the truth and reality just because it does not fit our preconceived narrative?
A Christian Alternative
The Christian alternative, according to Bilbro, is not a happy medium between the cyclical and narrative filters, nor is it to reject both filters. Surprisingly, a Christian approach unites the two filters in a transcendent way to give a larger context to both celebrity and narrative.
As Christians, our “celebrity” or primary actor is, of course, Jesus Christ. Our primary focus, therefore, is on what Jesus has done and is doing in the world. Everything else fits around that.
The primary narrative is the biblical story of God’s love for the world, leading to his redeeming the world through Jesus Christ. This narrative begins with Creation and extends through Christ’s return and the New Creation, including the resurrection into a new heaven and a new earth. All the events of our world need to be viewed in the context of that overarching narrative.
This approach means that we ought to look beyond just the facts of an event. For example, when we hear stories about refugees coming to America from Afghanistan, we can ask what Jesus is doing with these people. We can also ask how being a refugee fits into the narrative of God’s love for all people and his desire to draw them into relationship with himself. We can further ask how we can participate in what Jesus is doing and advance God’s mission of redemption.
We are not used to thinking this way about the news. Often, we simply react with an emotional approval or disapproval of what we hear or read about. As Christians, we are called to go deeper, to think and pray over what is happening in the world. That means we can give our attention in this way to far fewer news stories – which is a good thing (as Part 1 proposes)!
Looking at the news from the perspective of what Jesus is doing in the world and the narrative of God’s creation and redemption puts the news in a different perspective. It helps us not get consumed by trivia and discern the importance of various events in relation to our connection with the Lord of the Universe and in light of the Christian hope for resurrection and the New Creation.
One cautionary note here is to be humble and wary about applying biblical prophecy to current events. Prophecy about the future is part of the biblical narrative and can help us discern meaning in contemporary situations. However, interpreting prophecy is notoriously difficult and uncertain. Most biblical prophecies only make sense in hindsight. They are meant not so much to guide us through situations as to provide assurance after the fact that God was working in and through what took place. (Witness the fact that few in Jesus’ time understood he was fulfilling biblical prophecy until after his resurrection – not even his closest disciples or the most educated religious leaders of the day.)
It is well understood that there is a variety of understandings about what will happen in the “end times.” Will there be a “rapture” of believers out of the world or not? If so, when in that series of events will it occur? Will there be a 1,000-year millennium of earthly life under Christ’s rule before the final conflict with evil? When will the end of the world and Christ’s return happen? Throughout history, Christians have disagreed over the answers to these questions.
Therefore, we should be reluctant to impose our particular understanding of biblical prophecy on the daily news. When we propose possible connections, we should be tentative and humble about doing so. We will only know for sure the meaning of events in their aftermath.
Helpful Practices
One way we can nurture this Christian alternative to the world’s news filters is to observe the Church’s liturgical year, suggests Bilbro. The two cycles, Advent – Christmas – Epiphany and Lent – Easter – Pentecost, recount the Bible’s narrative of God’s redemptive love every single year. Observing these cycles helps ground us in the biblical narrative and continually reminds us to look for what God is doing in the world today as an outworking of that narrative. We need that continual reminder of the big picture, and the liturgical year reinforces the narrative using selected Scriptures and themes, colors, music, artwork, and traditions that retell the story in new and multisensory ways.
Bilbro also suggests that we cultivate a greater appreciation for the arts, which focus not on day-to-day happenings, but whose meaning transcends time. The depictions of paintings, music, drama, dance, and other arts connect more deeply with the timeless human condition and how God addresses our humanity through his Son, Jesus Christ. Even when those arts are not overtly Christian, we can discern Christ’s message in and through them.
Finally, Bilbro reminds us to ask the Henry Blackaby question: Where and how is God working in our world today, and how can I join him in his work? I remember when the news came that the Berlin wall was coming down and the Soviet Union was changing dramatically. Those changes opened a great opportunity for the rejuvenation of the Protestant churches in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Bibles were once again in high demand. Evangelism was once again possible at a level much greater than before. Many denominations and parachurch groups jumped on this opportunity (including United Methodism) to replant or nurture the roots of long-dormant churches.
We can see how the events of today present opportunities for ministry and find their meaning as part of the overarching narrative of God’s redemptive love in Jesus Christ. That is a far healthier perspective than obsessing over the latest antics of the celebrity of the moment or the partisan machinations of our favorite political nemesis.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Feb 15, 2022 | Front Page News, Home Page Hero Slider
By Thomas Lambrecht – In a series of six decisions handed down this week, the Judicial Council has brought greater clarity to the disaffiliation process enacted by the 2019 General Conference. Under that new ¶ 2553, local churches may vote to withdraw from The United Methodist Church by satisfying the following conditions:
- Payment of the 12 months’ apportionments prior to the disaffiliation date, plus an additional 12 months’ apportionments
- Payment of the local church’s pension withdrawal liability (the local church’s share of the annual conference’s unfunded pension liability), which varies in amount from one annual conference to another
- Vote of approval by a two-thirds majority of the professing members of the local church present at a church conference
- Vote of approval by a simple majority of the annual conference
By following these steps, a local church can withdraw from The United Methodist Church while retaining its buildings and property, being released from the Trust Clause. This process expires December 31, 2023, and cannot be used after that date (unless General Conference extends it).
Some annual conferences have added requirements to the above steps or otherwise encountered glitches with the process, which then prompted challenges to the Judicial Council for rulings. Those cases have now been decided in Judicial Council Decisions 1420 through 1425. Some bishops and annual conferences have been stalling the disaffiliation process while waiting for the clarity these rulings provide. Additional information may be found in this United Methodist News Service article.
Annual Conference Approval
Two of the current decisions deal with situations where annual conference approval was in question. In the aftermath of the 2019 General Conference that enacted ¶ 2553, the Judicial Council ruled in Decision 1379, “[T]he final decision concerning exiting local churches belongs to the annual conference as part of its ‘reserved rights.’” Although not in the language of ¶ 2553, the Judicial Council ruled that annual conferences must approve the disaffiliation of any local congregation by a simple majority vote.
The Alabama-West Florida Conference (Decision 1421) questioned why a local church was allowed to disaffiliate with its property prior to an annual conference vote of approval. Judicial Council ruled this was “unlawful.” However, since the property had already been deeded to the local church by the annual conference, “as a matter of Florida property law, the train has left the station, and we lack any jurisdiction to entertain challenges to the validity of the deed.”
In the North Georgia Annual Conference (Decision 1420), a lay member asked, “Since the Annual Conference must approve the final act of disaffiliation, can the Annual Conference not therefore set some of the conditions in the agreement when they do not conflict with 2553?” Judicial Council ruled that under ¶ 2553.4, “the terms and conditions for that disaffiliation shall be established by the board of trustees of the applicable annual conference, with the advice of the cabinet, the annual conference treasurer, the annual conference benefits officer, the director of connectional ministries, and the annual conference chancellor.” Since the trustees set those terms and conditions in negotiation with the disaffiliating local church, “The ratification of a disaffiliation agreement is completed by a vote up or down by the members of an annual conference but does not include the right to amend it.” Of course, the annual conference does have the authority to set policies for all disaffiliating local churches to meet. That leads us to the next series of decisions.
Annual Conference Authority
The bottom line of the Judicial Council rulings is that the annual conference has the authority to add additional requirements to the disaffiliation process for local churches. The New England Conference (Decision 1425) requires an extensive process of consultation by local churches prior to any decision to disaffiliate. The process has to last a minimum of eight months and include a study of the ministry impact of the church in its community and the feedback on the impact of disaffiliation by both community members and annual conference officials. This long and onerous process seems designed to discourage churches from disaffiliating. Due to the expiration date of ¶ 2553, churches in New England would have to begin the discernment process by the end of August 2022 in order to complete the process and obtain annual conference approval in 2023 before the paragraph expires.
Other annual conferences added financial requirements over and above what ¶ 2553 demands. The Arkansas Annual Conference (Decision 1424) requires repayment of any grants from the annual conference to the disaffiliating local church in the previous ten years. A recent statement by Bishop Farr of the Missouri Annual Conference affirms that a third year of apportionments must be paid to that annual conference. At least two other annual conferences require disaffiliating churches to pay the annual conference a percentage of the appraised value of their property.
In Decision 1425, the Judicial Council quoted provisions in ¶¶ 2553 and 1504.23 that “clearly suggest that the disaffiliation process established by the General Conference constitutes minimum standards, which do not preclude additional procedures and standard terms created by annual conferences, provided that the latter do not negate or violate the former.” In other words, the Judicial Council has ruled that annual conferences can impose whatever additional requirements they want on disaffiliating churches, as long as those requirements do not contradict what is in the steps listed at the top of this article.
Gracious or Punitive?
The potential result of this series of decisions is that annual conferences could impose onerous requirements on local churches seeking to disaffiliate. In some annual conferences, the pension withdrawal liability alone makes it prohibitive for most local churches to consider disaffiliation. That number could range anywhere from four to ten times the church’s annual apportionment. (Recent stock market growth has reduced the liability for many annual conferences.) Requiring additional apportionments, the repayment of grants up to ten years old, or the payment of a percentage of the property value only make disaffiliation under ¶ 2553 even more impossible for cash-strapped local churches.
Many bishops and annual conference leaders say they support treating traditionalists graciously in the process of separation. Some have said they want to ensure local churches can make the decision of where to affiliate that best meets the needs of that local church and its ministry. Some progressives and centrists have even displayed frustration that traditionalists do not begin separating now, rather than waiting for General Conference.
The requirements for leaving the denomination explained above demonstrate why, according to UM News Service, only 130 (out of 31,000) local churches have disaffiliated over the past two years. If UM leaders want to be gracious, it is in their power to do so by refraining from adding onerous requirements to the disaffiliation process. Actions speak louder than words.
The blank check the Judicial Council has given annual conferences to impose requirements and demand additional payments from departing congregations demonstrates even more vividly why the Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace through Separation is needed. Under the Protocol, all payments by the local church go away. The local church is required to pay nothing to the annual conference, and its pension liability is assumed by the new denomination. In exchange for leaving behind hundreds of millions of dollars of general church assets, local churches are allowed to keep the buildings and properties that, in most cases, they paid for themselves. If progressives and centrists truly want a gracious resolution of our denominational conflict, the answer is to hold a General Conference and pass the Protocol.
If the Protocol is not enacted soon, in those annual conferences where additional onerous requirements are part of the disaffiliation process, some local churches may be better off walking away from their buildings and property and starting over. No amount of property is worth compromising the integrity of our Christian witness. For the first several centuries of the Church’s explosive growth, there were no church buildings at all. If we truly want to recapture the spirit and fervor of the New Testament Church, we should not allow ourselves to be unduly hindered by the need to maintain buildings and property, even though they can certainly be an asset to a church’s ministry. While it is painful to surrender buildings and cemeteries to which we have a deeply heartfelt attachment, our friends in the Episcopal Church who had to relinquish their buildings to start the Anglican Church in North America testify to the freedom that can come in focusing on new vehicles of ministry. In many rural communities in Africa, the church meets under a tree or in a community building. We may need to be similarly creative and adaptable.
I do not understand why some bishops and annual conferences think they can coerce people into remaining in The United Methodist Church through expensive and onerous disaffiliation requirements. Taking a punitive or heavy-handed approach only drives people away from the UM Church – it is not winsome. Local congregations may be prevented or discouraged from withdrawing with their buildings, but that does not foster loyalty among the lay members of the church. Those lay members can easily walk out the door and down the street to another church or abandon the institutional church altogether. (Many have done so in recent years.) Coercive leadership just accelerates the process of “dechurchification.”
These Judicial Council decisions give bishops and annual conferences the opportunity to demonstrate grace in the midst of separation and conflict. They can move forward with the Protocol and refrain from onerous and expensive disaffiliation processes. Will they pass the test?
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News. Photo: Shutterstock.
by Steve | Dec 22, 2021 | Front Page News, Home Page Hero Slider, In the News
Mary’s Devoted Heart
By Dick McClain
Growing up, I don’t recall having heard a sermon on Mary, the mother of Jesus. She did get dusted off every December for the Christmas pageant. But apart from her annual appearance reincarnated in the form of a budding young thespian, she hardly existed. Perhaps the folks in my evangelical Protestant circle felt that the Catholics went a little too far.
While I’ve never been accused of tilting toward Rome, somewhere along the line I began to suspect that we were being robbed by our silence about Mary. After all, the woman God chose to become the mother of our Lord just might have something to say to us today.
Which brings up another point. Not only did I not hear much about Mary; I didn’t hear much about any of the women of the Bible. When they were presented, it was only in the context of their being a model for women, never for men. The implication was that the male heroes of the faith – Moses, Joshua, David, Peter, and all the rest – were role models for all Christians, men and women alike. But the female heroes of the Bible – Deborah, Naomi, Ruth, and Priscilla – were only models of Christian womanhood.
I ditched that idea.
All of this leads me to suggest two things. First, Mary’s life is worth studying and emulating. Secondly, she is a good model for my entire family, both male and female.
In the first two chapters of Luke, there are fascinating insights into the quality of Mary’s life and faith. Her godliness was evident in a number of traits that we would do well to pattern.
Faith in God. Who comes to mind when you think of biblical examples of faith? I’ll bet you immediately thought of Abraham. Not a bad pick, considering the fact that he believed some rather unbelievable things God told him. But have you thought about the message Gabriel brought to Mary?
Mary was a teenage girl from a poor family who lived in an obscure village in a tiny nation which itself was under subjection to a foreign power. One day an angel came to her with a message from God.
She had found favor with God; she would give birth to a Son whom she was to name Jesus; her baby would be called the Son of the Most High and would sit on David’s throne forever; his kingdom would never end; and all this was going to happen without her ever having sexual relations with a man.
Now, be honest. Would you have believed that?
The remarkable thing is that Mary did! In fact, her cousin, Elizabeth, greeted her as “She who believed that what the Lord has said to her will be accomplished” (Luke 1:45).
That’s real faith! She was willing to take God at his word, even when what he said didn’t square with anything her experience told her to be true. We too must choose to believe God if we are to be godly people.
A surrendered life. Perhaps you have read Mary’s story, sensed the unparalleled excitement of what she was experiencing, tried to put yourself in her place, and concluded, “Wouldn’t it have been glorious to be Mary!”
But stop and think about it. How could she tell Joseph, to whom she was already legally betrothed? Although they had not yet begun living together, they were considered married and could be separated only through divorce. Don’t you think the prospect of suspicion flashed through her mind? It must have. Under similar circumstances, most of us would have asked the Lord to find someone else to do the job.
But not Mary. Her answer to the angel was a model of submission. “I am the Lord’s servant. May it be to me as you have said” (Luke 1:38).
Why was she so ready to submit? Because she understood herself to be God’s servant. Maybe the reason we are so prone to resist God is that we see him as our servant. We’ve got it backwards. We need to come to see, as Mary did, that God is God and not just some spiritual genie that we hope will magically fulfill our every whim.
A life of unassuming humility. One thing about Mary in those Christmas pageants that always struck me was her willingness to go without complaint to the stable.
Not me! If I had been Mary, I probably would have said, “Listen here, buster! This baby I’m about to have is no ordinary child. He is God’s Son and your King. We deserve better than this!”
In Luke’s version of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said, “Blessed are the poor” (Luke 6:20). Mary was poor. We know that because of the sacrifice she and Joseph offered when they presented Jesus at the temple. Since they fell below the poverty line, they qualified to give a pair of doves or two young pigeons, rather than bringing the customary lamb (see Luke 2:24 and Leviticus 12:8).
I don’t buy into the notion that God loves poor people and hates rich folks, or that the impoverished are constitutionally spiritual, while the wealthy are hopelessly ungodly. But I do know that amidst our affluence we have adopted an inflated sense of our own importance, rights, and prerogatives. Consequently, we have concluded that the world owes us a lot; other people owe us a lot; and God also owes us a lot. We have a bad case of inflated expectations.
The answer is not quitting our jobs and signing up for welfare. But if we are serious about godliness, we, like Mary, must relinquish our rights, surrender our demands, and accept whatever God gives.
Faithfulness in spiritual disciplines. Unlike many people today, Mary didn’t treat spiritual things casually.
When it came time to present Jesus at the temple, Joseph and Mary headed for Jerusalem (Luke 2:22). Only after they “had performed everything according to the Law of the Lord” did they return home (2:39). And when Passover season came, they went up to Jerusalem “every year” (2:41).
The implication is that Mary wasn’t one to shirk her spiritual responsibilities. It’s easy for us to neglect spiritual disciplines. Average annual worship attendance in the United Methodist Church typically limps along at less than half the membership. Many Christians would recoil at the suggestion that we should actually part with 10 percent of our income. I’m reminded of a cartoon that pictured a church sign that read: “The Original Lite Church: Home of the 3 Percent Tithe and the 45 Minute Worship Hour – 50 Percent Less Commitment Required.”
Sincerely godly people don’t neglect the Word or worship, prayer or tithing. They don’t treat spiritual disciplines cavalierly.
Spiritual sensitivity. Read Mary’s song, recorded in Luke 1:46-55. It’s more than magnificent. It is the overflow of a heart that was accustomed to communion with God.
How did Mary come to be so spiritually alert? Luke gives us a clue.
Following the shepherds’ visit, we are told that Mary “treasured up all these things, pondering them in her heart” (2:19). And when Mary and her family returned to Nazareth from their trip to Jerusalem for Passover when Jesus was twelve, we read that she “treasured all these things in her heart” (2:51).
Mary managed to carve time out of her busy life to ponder the deeper significance of what was taking place. She took time to pray, to meditate, and to reflect on what God was doing.
Most of us do not decide one day that we don’t want to be in tune with God. We don’t decide not to pray. We just let the priceless treasure of communion with God slip unnoticed through our fingers.
Spiritual sensitivity is not inherited, it is acquired through spending time with God. To borrow Terry Teykl’s phrase, Mary “prayed the price.” If we want to experience true godliness, we must do the same.
In trusting God, surrendering her life, giving up her rights, and learning to listen to the Spirit, Mary set an example for us all to follow.
Was she a super saint? No. Did she demonstrate sinless perfection? Not likely. But a devoted follower of God? You can be sure of it.
We can be the same.
Dick McClain is the former CEO of The Mission Society (now TMS Global). He is retired in Leadville, Colorado, with his wife Pam. This article originally appeared in Good News in 2003. Art by Kateryna Shadrina (Iconart-gallery.com).
by Steve | Feb 25, 2021 | Front Page News, In the News
Meeting on February 20, the Commission on the General Conference made a decision to further postpone the 2020 General Conference until August 29 – September 6, 2022 in Minneapolis, Minn. as the COVID-19 pandemic continues to affect the safety of mass gatherings and travel. The Commission concluded that mandate was not achievable by means of either an in-person meeting in 2021 or a virtual meeting.
In response to the further postponement of the 2020 General Conference, the Council of Bishops (COB) is calling a Special Session of the General Conference of The United Methodist Church (UMC) to be convened online on May 8, 2021.
According to a press release, “The purpose of the 2021 Special Session of the General Conference will be limited to gaining a quorum in order to suspend the rules for the sole purpose of allowing the use of paper ballots to act upon 12 pieces of legislation that would enable the church to effectively continue its work until the postponed 2020 General Conference is held in 2022.”
The Protocol of Reconciliation and Separation is not one of the 12 items listed by the bishops.
Further analysis and perspective will be forthcoming from Good News and other renewal groups in the coming days.
The press release from the Council of Bishops can be read HERE.
The announcement from the Commission on the General Conference can be read HERE.
by Steve | Feb 27, 2020 | Front Page News, In the News
Press Release from Africa Initiative
February 27, 2020
Clergy and lay leaders from the three Central Conferences of Africa, representing the UMC Africa Initiative from thirteen annual conferences, gathered in Johannesburg, South Africa, from 24th to 27th February 2020 to discuss the future of the global United Methodist Church. Our discussion was centered on the proposed Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace through Separation that is expected to come before the 2020 General Conference in Minneapolis, Minnesota, in May 2020.
After vigorous discussion and critique, the leaders of the UMC Africa Initiative have decided to support the passage of the implementing legislation of the Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace through Separation.
Our discussion on the Protocol became necessary because of the concerns it had raised among members and delegates from the three central conferences. Following a critical evaluation of the proposed Protocol and its implications for the UM Church in Africa, we felt deeply disappointed that Africa was not adequately represented at the negotiating table to present the concerns of the African church. We also felt that the Protocol, in its current form, is unfair to United Methodists in Africa due to its alignment of us with the post-separation UM Church by default, its attempt to deprive the traditionalist church in Africa from maintaining the “United Methodist” name and the cross and flame, and its allocation of resources.
Despite these concerns, in the common interest of the global church and the church’s need for an amicable separation, we decided to support the passage of the implementing legislation of the Protocol at the forthcoming 2020 General Conference.
At the same time, the UMC Africa Initiative urges the following amendments to the proposed protocol.
- That the traditionalist church in Africa may maintain the “United Methodist” name and cross and flame, with modification. For United Methodists in Africa, the name “United Methodist” and the cross and flame have indelible history and legacy. They have become a great symbol and witness to our ministries across our continental connection and bear significant spiritual and legal impact on our missional activities in Africa. The ability to continue using a form of the name and logo would greatly benefit the mission and ministry of the church in Africa.
- That a vote of 57 percent be the basis for determining the decision of a central conference to join the new traditionalist Methodist Church. We consider it unreasonable for United Methodists in Africa to have to vote to maintain our traditional beliefs. Nevertheless, for the sake of furthering amicable separation, we urge a 57 percent vote to determine a central conference status. This change would yield consistency with the annual conference threshold and place the central conferences on an equal footing with annual conferences in the United States.
- That the Protocol implementing legislation ensure that every central conference, annual conference, and local church be permitted to vote when it desires to do so under the processes of the legislation without any form of suppression or coercion by anyone.
The leadership of the UMC Africa Initiative reiterates its support for the passage of the implementing legislation for the Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace through Separation.
Signed
- Rev. Dr. Jerry P.Kulah, General Coordinator
- Rev. Dr. Kimba K. Evariste, Congo Central Conference Coordinator
- Mr. Simon Mafunda, Africa Central Conference Coordinator
- Rev. Dr. John Pena, West Africa Central Conference Coordinator
- Dr. Muriel V. Nelson, Women’s Wing vice- chair
- Dr. Pacis-Alarine Irambona, Active secretary Women’s Wing and Young People Representative
- Rev. Forbes Matonga, Member, Zimbabwe West Annual Conference
- Rev. Dr. Julius Sarwolo Nelson, Member, Liberia Annual Conference
- Rev. Dr. Henriette Lokoto Okele, Member, Central Congo Annual Conference
- Mrs. Khuliswa Masiso, Member, South Africa Annual Conference
- Rev. Philip Adjobe, Member, Cote D’Ivoire Annual Conference
- Rev. Lazare Bankurunaze, Member, Burundi Annual Conference
- Mr. Louis Aboua, Member, Cote D’Ivoire Annual Conference
- Mr. Rukang Chikomb, Member, South Congo Annual Conference
- Mrs. Dorothée Abedi Tulia, Member, North Katanga Annual Conference
- Rev. Odongo Wilton, Member, Kenya-Ethiopia Annual Conference
- Rev. Bartolomeu Dias Sapalo, Member, East Angola Annual Conference
- Chief Prosperous Tunda, Member, East Congo Annual Conference
by Steve | Mar 13, 2018 | Front Page News, In the News, Uncategorized
By Rob Renfroe –
Recently a progressive United Methodist pastor said to me, “I don’t understand why you can’t accept the local option. It lets pastors who want to marry gay couples do so. But it doesn’t compel people like you to perform such ceremonies. It allows annual conferences to ordain married homosexuals where that’s acceptable. But where the context is different – in the South, for example – you’re free not to. I don’t understand why you can’t live with that.”
I think that pastor got to the heart of the matter even though he didn’t realize it. And the heart of the matter is he doesn’t understand classical evangelicals. It has to be frustrating for progressives to come up with an approach they believe to be very reasonable and that allows everyone to do what they desire, only for us to find it unacceptable. After all, what could be more American than letting everyone “have it their way”?
What do progressives not get about us? For starters, we believe the Scriptures really are the word of God. When a pastor holds up a Bible in church and says, “The word of God for the people of God,” we don’t cross our fingers behind our backs, roll our eyes, or snicker when we respond, “Thanks be to God.” We honestly believe the Scriptures are “God-breathed” and, therefore, authoritative for our lives. We don’t think that we know more about salvation, sexuality, or the nature of God than the Bible does. We don’t believe we get to ignore or need to correct the parts of Scripture that a progressive culture finds hard to accept. Consequently, we cannot affirm any solution that allows pastors in the UM Church to teach or act contrary to what God has revealed in his written word. I know that progressive pastors who have been trained in liberal seminaries simply cannot comprehend that we would hold such a high view of Scripture. But that’s what we believe.
Progressives also do not comprehend how offensive it is for us to hear that all they want to do is provide a solution that “contextualizes” the Gospel. If all they meant by “contextualizing the Gospel” was thinking of creative ways to present Christ so that the Gospel spoke to people in different cultural settings, we’d be all for it. Missionaries attend months, if not years, of training to understand the culture they will be ministering in. How you present the Gospel to an atheistic philosophy professor in New England is much different from how you would share Christ with an uneducated, lower caste Hindu in India.
But when progressives talk about contextualizing the Gospel, they don’t mean presenting the same message in different ways. They mean changing the message to fit the values that culture holds dear. In the Bible Belt it’s still OK to teach traditional values because people there still accept marriage as one man and one woman. But in California, progressives tell us, to reach people you must have a liberalized sexual ethic, including the normalization of homosexual behavior and gay marriage. Why? Because people on the West Coast will turn you off if you tell them differently.
What progressives do not understand is that we traditionalists do not have a utilitarian view of truth. We don’t think the truth is whatever works or whatever sells. We don’t see the church as a soft drink company that is trying to offer something for everyone. Proclaiming the Gospel is not like trying to find a flavor that people will buy and decide that if it becomes popular enough, we’ll start selling it. Paul wrote, “You see, we are not like the many hucksters who preach for personal profit. We preach the word of God with sincerity and with Christ’s authority, knowing that God is watching us” (2 Corinthians 2.17). Progressives, true progressives, believe that people are free to create their own truth and whatever works for a person is true for that person. It’s hard for liberals to understand, but it is hurtful for us to see the Gospel treated as something so cheap. It is offensive for us to hear pastors and bishops present the truth of God’s word as a lump of clay that we can fashion into our own image or into the likeness of a fallen and sinful culture. Our job as Paul tells us is not to make the Gospel palatable, but plain.
Progressives also don’t understand how we see the work of the Holy Spirit. A resolution that is coming before my annual conference this May calls upon the church to change our sexual ethic because “the Holy Spirit is doing a new thing.” Evidently, they believe, the Holy Spirit is now revealing that same-gender sexual relations and same-sex marriage are acceptable in God’s sight. Of course, the sponsors of the resolution do not give a single reason to believe this is what the Spirit is doing. They simply state it as a fact.
What they don’t understand is that we will never be persuaded that “the new thing” the Spirit is doing is repealing the written word of God. The Spirit illumines our understanding of God and his will. The Spirit enables us to see in new ways the wonder of what God has done and what he has revealed – and even how these truths apply to our particular settings. But the Spirit never contradicts what the Scriptures teach because the Scriptures are God-breathed. Has God changed his mind, received more light along the way, or become more progressive as the ages have passed? If not, then how can the same God now be revealing a sexual ethic that contradicts what he has previously stated to be his will?
I get that progressives just don’t get us. We believe the Bible, all of it, is the inspired word of God. They don’t. We believe the truth is what it is, not what we make it into. They don’t. We believe that what the Spirit reveals will always be true to the Scriptures. They don’t. We are coming from such different places that I understand it’s difficult for liberals to comprehend how we think.
But what progressives and centrists need to get is this: we will not be able to stay in a church that denies the full inspiration, truth, and authority of the Scriptures. And that’s really what’s behind “the local option.”
That’s why traditional evangelicals continue to press for a faithful church with a sexual ethic that is true to Scripture. Either the UM Church remains committed to God’s word or the UM Church will split. Progressives don’t have to “get” that, but they do need to believe it.
Rob Renfroe is the president and publisher of Good News. He is the co-author with Walter Fenton of the new book titled Are We Really Better Together – An Evangelical Perspective on the Division within the UMC. This book describes just how deep the division is within the United Methodist Church, provides a critique of the various plans the bishops are considering, and gives answers to the most common reasons people give for liberalizing our sexual ethics.
