by Steve | Sep 1, 2023 | In the News, Perspective / News
A Collapsing “Big Tent”?
By Thomas Lambrecht
Throughout this season of disaffiliation, many United Methodist bishops and leaders have attempted to convince traditionalists to remain in the denomination. They have assured traditionalists that there is a place for them in the UM Church and that their views would be respected. Some annual conferences have developed a culture of inclusion that enables traditionalists to participate equally. Other annual conferences – not so much.
Two current examples illustrate the eagerness of some bishops and conference leaders to exclude or punish traditionalist leaders.
Traditionalist Leader Removed from Standing Committee
On August 19, Simon Mafunda, a layperson in Zimbabwe, Africa, received an email notifying him that the (East) Africa Central Conference College of Bishops (the five bishops serving in eastern and southern Africa) had removed him from membership on the Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters. Mafunda has been a General Conference delegate and a member of the Standing Committee since 2016. He also served as lay leader of the Zimbabwe East Conference, elected as such by the annual conference members.
Bishop Daniel Wandabula, president of the College of Bishops, alleged in the email that Mafunda no longer represented the interests of the (East) Africa Central Conference because he is serving as the Vice President for Africa Strategy for the Wesleyan Covenant Association. Wandabula gave no specific example of how Mafunda has failed to represent the central conference in his work on the Standing Committee. Mafunda was removed from the committee and a replacement named by the College of Bishops in time for the next meeting of the Standing Committee, which took place the same day Mafunda received the email.
There is no provision in the Book of Discipline allowing a College of Bishops to remove someone from a committee of the church. Mafunda was named to the Standing Committee by the Council of Bishops (all the bishops serving in the denomination) and ratified by vote of the General Conference. The College of Bishops had no official role in naming Mafunda and has no official role to remove him from the committee.
The Standing Committee itself has the authority under Par. 711 “to remove and dismiss at their discretion any member, officer, or employee thereof:
- Who has become incapacitated so as to be unable to perform official duties.
- Who is guilty of immoral conduct or breach of trust.
- Who for any reason is unable to or who fails to perform the duties of the office or for other misconduct that any council, board, committee, or commission may deem sufficient to warrant such dismissal and removal.”
It is notable that the Standing Committee did not take this action to remove Mafunda. They did not find his participation on the committee to be a “breach of trust,” nor did they find him unable to perform his duties on the committee.
The College of Bishops does have the authority to fill a vacancy on the Standing Committee (Par. 712), but they did not have the authority to create the vacancy in order to fill it.
It is surmised that the bishops removed Mafunda from the Standing Committee in order to smooth the way for approval of the petitions for regionalization. Mafunda had been an outspoken opponent of the Christmas Covenant and other regionalization proposals. His removal allowed the Standing Committee to approve the latest version of the regionalization petitions without opposition.
The (East) Africa College of Bishops seems very selective about what they consider the interests of the central conference. They removed a strong traditionalist leader who has been an advocate for the current Book of Discipline. At the same time, they had nothing to say about the fact that Kenya now has two Reconciling Congregations, one of which was personally dedicated by Bishop Wandabula himself. The designating of a congregation as a “Reconciling Congregation” has been illegal under church law since 1999 (Judicial Council Decisions 847 and 871). Yet, Wandabula was allowed to promote something that is illegal, while at the same time also violating church law in removing a member of the Standing Committee.
It seems that the traditionalist position is not welcome in the (East) Africa Central Conference among its leaders.
North Georgia Vindictiveness
North Georgia Conference leaders were already in a questionable position after “pausing” the disaffiliation process for all churches at the end of 2022. Only a court ruling in response to a lawsuit filed by 190 churches forced the conference to reopen the process for disaffiliation. At this point, some 250 churches have voted to disaffiliate in North Georgia.
The First United Methodist Church of LaGrange, Georgia, failed its disaffiliation vote by 13 votes. The conference pulled out all the stops to keep that church in the fold. They sent in the conference chancellor, five former pastors of the congregation, three college presidents of LaGrange College, and others to advocate for the church to remain United Methodist. Despite the pressure, 64 percent of the 535 ballots cast favored disaffiliation. It missed the required two-thirds vote by 13 ballots.
The week after the vote, a prayer meeting was held to promote healing and unity in the congregation. The district superintendent recruited another pastor to attend the prayer meeting and video record it. At the conclusion of the prayer meeting, that pastor verbally and publicly confronted both the senior and associate pastors of LaGrange First, yelling, “If you had any integrity, you would resign from The United Methodist Church.”
The following Sunday, the senior pastor, the Rev. Dr. John Beyers, preached a conciliatory sermon indicating his hope that the church could continue its ministry and that it could be a strong traditionalist voice within the North Georgia Conference. At the same time, nearly 250 members of the church met in a Baptist Church gym to start a new Global Methodist congregation.
This past Sunday, it was announced that Beyers had been suspended by the bishop and conference board of ordained ministry. One of the former LaGrange College presidents was appointed as the interim pastor. In keeping with the suspension, Beyers was forbidden any contact with church members and barred from the church campus.
Highly unusually, all administrative committees of the church were also suspended from meeting. This included the church council, Staff-Parish, Finance, Trustees, and Nominations Committees. All non-essential expenditures of money were also frozen. There is no provision in the Book of Discipline allowing the annual conference to shut down the operation of lawfully elected leaders of a local church, unless the conference has declared “exigent circumstances” and is closing the church. So far, that has not been the case here.
Chris Ritter reports that “Dr. Beyers is a distinguished member of the World Methodist Council, a trustee of the historic Epworth Rectory, and widely respected as a center-right presence in the UMC.” He has served in ministry for 35 fruitful years. Beyers had also recently been hospitalized for a serious medical condition. He serves as a member of the Good News board.
It is unknown what would prompt North Georgia leaders to treat a respected traditionalist leader in such a callous way, or what would justify the conference’s illegal and heavy-handed attempt to wrest control of a local church away from its elected leaders, especially in a church where the conference won the vote! The church is remaining United Methodist, and there is nothing its traditionalist members could do about that. Yet the conference still came down hard on that congregation.
The interim appointed pastor, The Rev. Dr. Stuart Gulley, had advocated for the congregation to remain UM by stating, “Ten years from now, I fully expect that positions on homosexuality, like with slavery a century ago and women’s ordination over a half century ago, will have evolved to the point that few people will hold that homosexuality is contrary to biblical teaching.” Gulley certainly reflects the direction conference leaders want to take the church in North Georgia. Based on the conference’s actions, it appears there is no longer any room for a traditionalist voice in that conference.
In her announcement of Beyers’ suspension, the church’s Staff-Parish Relations Committee chair said, “Doctor Gulley is prepared to lead you, in his own words, on ‘the right side of history.’ But as for me and my household, we shall serve the Lord.” She then walked out of the service, accompanied by about a dozen other members.
Sadly, power plays by bishops and annual conference leaders will make many traditionalists believe they, too, have no longer any place in the UM Church. It makes one question whether the “Big Tent” approach to Methodism is sustainable.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and vice president of Good News. Image: Shutterstock.
by Steve | Aug 29, 2023 | In the News, Perspective / News
Contrasting Views of Scripture
By Thomas Lambrecht
The essence of the conflict currently roiling The United Methodist Church is a disagreement over the teaching and authority of Scripture. This disagreement is manifested in the church’s attitude toward same-sex romantic relationships. But the reason that traditionalists are unwilling to compromise on the historic teaching of the church on the definition of marriage and the proper sphere of human sexual expression is that such a compromise seems to us to violate the clear teaching of Scripture. In the progressive view, either Scripture does not mean what it says about these issues, or there is another authority that is higher than Scripture for what Christians should believe and how we should live.
A recent blog post on the progressive United Methodist site, UM Insight (edited by Cynthia Astle), featured a ten-point summary of a progressive view of Scripture. Written by Ashley Anderson, otherwise unidentified in the article, the summary outlines a series of “revelations” in response to her “reading the sacred scriptures of the world’s religions,” as well as “conversations with people who belonged to other faiths.” The points she pens apply to all the various sacred writings of the world’s religions, including Christian Scripture.
All progressives may not share Ashley’s perspective on Scripture. But I have heard and read similar ideas often enough that I believe there is a common viewpoint held by many progressives that aligns with Ashley’s summary. The virtue of Ashley’s summary is that it puts the points in a very clear and succinct way that enables us to contrast this particular progressive view with the traditional understanding of Scripture held by the church through most of its history.
What is Scripture?
The summary begins, “All religious scriptures are the words of humans about God, not God’s words to humans. They were written by humans no holier than you or I” [sic].
This poses the basic question, “Is the Bible the self-revelation of God (God’s Word) or simply a record of what people thought were their experiences with God?” If it is the latter, then the Bible carries only the weight of authority we might give to the advice of a good friend. It certainly would not bear the weight of forming the basis for a whole religious and theological system, let alone being a reliable guide as to how to live and have a relationship with the living God.
The EUB Confession of Faith, one of our doctrinal standards, says this about the Bible, “We believe the Holy Bible, Old and New Testaments, reveals the Word of God so far as it is necessary for our salvation. It is to be received through the Holy Spirit as the true rule and guide for faith and practice.”
Most traditionalists believe the Bible not only reveals the Word of God, but it is the Word of God. Some would go so far as to say the Bible is without error in all that it teaches. Others would allow for inconsequential errors in things like numbers or limited historical data. All would agree that the Bible is the infallible guide to the way of human salvation, including who God is and how we can relate to him in a personal way.
Some traditionalists would say that every word of the Bible was dictated by God. Certainly, there are large chunks of Scripture that purport to quote God’s exact words, including in the law of Moses and in many of the prophets. The Gospels purport to record the words of Jesus. These sections undoubtedly are the exact words of God/Jesus. Many traditionalists would say that the rest of Scripture, while not directly dictated by God, was inspired by God, so that the human authors, working out of their own culture and experience, conveyed the truth from God in the language and idioms they were familiar with.
The key verse traditionalists point to is 2 Timothy 3:16, “All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right.” The early church designated which books are considered part of the Bible. All these 66 books are inspired by God. While their authors may not be perfectly holy, they were used by God as instruments to convey his truth to the world. (And some of them were very holy and righteous people!)
Is the Bible authoritative for how we are to live?
Ashley Anderson’s progressive summary says, “Not all the advice given in scriptures is worth following and not all the rules given in them are worth obeying.”
The UM Confession of Faith says, “[The Bible] is to be received through the Holy Spirit as the true rule and guide for faith and practice.” It goes on to say, “Whatever is not revealed in or established by the Holy Scriptures is not to be made an article of faith nor is it to be taught as essential to salvation.”
Does that mean that every word or command of Scripture is to be obeyed now in our time in the Christian church? No. The real question is, how are we to know which parts of the Bible still apply to us today?
The UM Articles of Religion, which are also part of our doctrinal standards, says, “Although the law given from God by Moses as touching ceremonies and rites doth not bind Christians, nor ought the civil precepts thereof of necessity be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian whatsoever is free from the obedience of the commandments which are called moral.”
The church distinguishes between ceremonies and rites of worship commanded in the Old Testament, civil precepts that governed the nation of Israel, and moral teachings and commandments. The death and resurrection of Jesus made the Old Testament sacrificial system unnecessary. And the church is not a government, so it need not follow the rules laid out for how the national government of Israel was supposed to function in the Old Testament. Jesus himself abrogated the rules about kosher foods (Mark 7:19). Therefore, the church no longer follows the ceremonial, civil, or food laws of the Old Testament. Even so, however, these laws often contain principles that can be instructive for Christians, and we should not just ignore them.
The church does acknowledge the continuing authority of the moral commandments, those teachings that lay out the “principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior,” as the Oxford dictionary puts it. The laws about marriage and human sexuality unquestionably fall into this category.
The point is that individuals are not equipped to go through the Bible and pick and choose which “advice” or “rules” apply to us. The church has established guidelines about which types of teachings are still applicable, and there is a long tradition of how these teachings are to be applied in our lives. Coming to a conclusion about whether a certain teaching is still applicable today is a determination made by the church as a whole, informed by biblical scholarship and theological reasoning. And it has to be rooted in the various categories listed above. The Ten Commandments are still in force!
Is the Bible to be trusted?
Anderson’s progressive summary states, “People who claim to have been chosen by God to give final and definitive messages to humanity should not be trusted, especially with children.” Leaving aside the snarky humor in that point, I guess that leaves Jesus out of the equation.
Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me.” And, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:6, 9). Jesus was pretty clear that he was sent by God the Father to reveal him to humanity. As the writer to the Hebrews says, “Long ago God spoke many times and in many ways through the prophets. And now in these final days, he has spoken to us through his Son. … The Son radiates God’s own glory and expresses the very character of God” (Hebrews 1:1-3). As Paul put it from the ancient Christian hymn, “Christ is the visible image of the invisible God.”
The essence of the Christian faith is that Jesus is the way to the Father (not just one way among many). He teaches and embodies the truth about God and about humanity. He gives us life in the here and now, as well as throughout eternity.
How do we know these things? How do we know what Jesus said? In those hackneyed words, because “the Bible tells me so.” If we do not trust the Bible, there is no way we can trust Jesus. We have no way of reliably knowing Jesus outside the written words of Scripture. The good news is that the Bible has been proven true time after time. Whether it is an archaeological confirmation of some recorded historical detail, or the wisdom of finding salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, the Scriptures are trustworthy.
Ultimately, to not trust the Bible is to instead trust our own wisdom and understanding. It is we who would determine what we believe from the Bible and what we would reject. It is we who would decide what we think God is like, who Jesus is, and how we can please God (if we think we even need to do that!). It becomes the religion of me, instead of the Gospel, the Good News of Jesus Christ that has been proclaimed and lived for 2,000 years and has transformed countless lives and changed the course of human history. In the end, it is to put ourselves in the place of God, making our understanding of God match our own image. Surely, that is the ultimate idolatry.
The progressive tendency to downplay the reliability and authority of the Bible and elevate human wisdom and experience (“follow the science!”) has proven to be a blind alley throughout human history. The contrasting perceptions of Scripture are the real issue at stake in our Methodist separation. This is why most traditionalists believe we are dealing with bedrock issues of faith, not simple disagreements about peripheral issues. It is why it was found necessary to separate from United Methodism, despite the cost and the conflict, and to begin the Global Methodist Church founded explicitly on the foundation of an infallible, trustworthy Bible and a consensual tradition of its interpretation throughout church history.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Aug 25, 2023 | In the News
Supporting Maui Relief —
We know that Methodists of all stripes are generous people when there is a tremendous need. If you have been watching the news over the last few weeks regarding the tragic and heartbreaking fires in Lahaina town on Maui and are looking for ways to contribute to faith-based ministries, please consider one of these three avenues.
1. Samaritan’s Purse. You can contribute HERE. You can read about Samaritan’s Purse’s ministry on Maui HERE.
2. The Lahaina United Methodist Church. Sadly, the historic sanctuary of Lahaina United Methodist Church was destroyed in the fire. Contributions can be made directly to the congregation HERE. The congregation can receive checks sent to LUMC, 142 Baker St., Lahaina, HI 96761, payable to Lahaina United Methodist Church. Written checks can be made payable to “HUMU” with the memo as “Lahaina UMC Donation” and mailed to the Hawai`i District Office, 20 S Vineyard Blvd, Honolulu, HI 96813. Individuals can also contribute through the Lahaina Relief Fund at calpacumc.org/donate.
You can read Sam Hodges’ UM News article “United Methodist connection at work for Maui” HERE.
3. The Salvation Army. Reliable and beloved, the Salvation Army provides food, emotional and spiritual care to survivors of the Maui wildfires. It uses 100% of all donations designated “disaster relief” to support disaster operations.Contributions can be made HERE.
Photo by Steve Beard. (Lahaina was the royal capital of the Kingdom of Hawaii from 1820 to 1845.)
by Steve | Aug 18, 2023 | Home Page Hero Slider, In the News
Centrist Misconceptions —
By Thomas Lambrecht —
Over the last several weeks, this Perspective has been in dialogue with the weekly e-newsletter of Mainstream UMC, a caucus group representing United Methodist centrists. Mainstream’s articles have been illuminating what the future United Methodist Church will likely evolve into. They certainly have indicated the direction many centrists see the church pursuing.
Last week’s Mainstream missive contained a number of misunderstandings and mischaracterizations about those who are disaffiliating. Their article is entitled “Clarity.” So in the interest of clarity, let us examine some of the mistaken ideas Mainstream puts forward about traditionalists who are disaffiliating.
Forced Conformity
The Mainstream article begins by describing disaffiliating traditionalists as “looking for a denomination where everyone will be forced into lockstep about Scripture, about what discipleship looks like, about whose love is worthy of God’s blessing and whose is not” (emphasis added).
First of all, there is no “force” involved. For example, those who align with the new Global Methodist Church are choosing to do so because they agree with the stated beliefs of the GM Church. Some centrists appear to have the misconception that people who voluntarily unite under a banner of common theological commitments are somehow being “forced” into some type of artificial unity. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The GM Church has set forth its understanding of the faith, through its doctrinal standards and social witness statements. It subscribes to the ancient creeds of the church, as well as the doctrinal standards of the UM Church. It maintains the 2,000-year-old teachings of the church on marriage and sexuality. It understands discipleship as a process of becoming daily more like Jesus, empowered by the Holy Spirit and guided by the teachings of Scripture. If someone does not agree with these foundational understandings of the Christian faith, they would not voluntarily join the GM Church.
What is different about the GM Church is that it will expect its pastors and bishops to teach and maintain the doctrines of the church. Ironically, that is what the UM Church also says on paper. The “Historic Questions” asked of all candidates for ordination include these: “Have you studied the doctrines of The United Methodist Church? After full examination do you believe that our doctrines are in harmony with the Holy Scriptures? Have you studied our form of Church discipline and polity? Do you approve our Church government and polity? Will you support and maintain them?”
For many years, these “Historic Questions” have been viewed as a type of historical relic that some candidates answer with their fingers crossed. That is not how John Wesley, Methodism’s founder who wrote the questions, saw them. Wesley was big on accountability for both doctrine and polity (church government). He expected Methodist preachers to abide by both.
Maybe this is what the Mainstream article means when it says people are “forced” to conform to certain understandings about the Christian faith. Aside from the fact that this accountability is voluntarily chosen by (not “forced” on) those who seek ordination as clergy, accountability to the organization’s doctrines is no different in the church from what is expected in secular businesses. Employees and especially leaders in any business are expected to promote the “company line.” Deviating from that message is ample cause for loss of employment. Should the church exert less accountability on its leaders than secular businesses do?
In addition, there is no “lockstep” on all theological matters in the GM Church. The foundation is covered in its doctrinal standards and social witness statement. Aside from these foundational matters, there is considerable latitude in opinions and beliefs about various other, nonessential teachings. Within a commonly-held boundary of basic belief, there is much room for theological exploration and disagreement (see further below).
Misrepresenting Wesley
The Mainstream article goes on to describe those who are disaffiliating as those “who cannot tolerate differences.” It quotes John Wesley as saying, “Though we can’t think alike, may we not love alike?” It argues that Wesley omitted the ancient creeds from Methodist doctrine “because he understood how they could become stumbling blocks to faith.” The article sums up its reasoning with the statement that “Methodists have never been about uniformity of belief, but rather uniformity of mission.”
Church historians can weigh in on whether Wesley thought the creeds could become stumbling blocks to faith (I think not). Suffice to say that the doctrines contained in the ancient creeds are also included in the Articles of Religion, which form the basis for United Methodist doctrinal standards. Perhaps Wesley thought including the creeds would be redundant and superfluous, given the already more robust doctrinal standards in the Articles of Religion.
It is certainly historically incorrect to state that Methodists have never been about uniformity of belief. Wesley himself during the formative years of the Methodist movement in England separated from the Moravians and then the Calvinists due to doctrinal differences. Both separations were actually quite sharp, with published articles pro and con trading accusations and even insults. Wesley was definitely concerned about doctrine. It is only in the 20th century that Methodists, in their drive toward ecumenical relations and denominational reunification, deemphasized doctrine as a uniting force.
Wesley’s quote above about thinking “alike” is taken out of context by Mainstream. In his sermon on the Catholic Spirit, he is urging that we treat one another as Christian brothers and sisters, despite differences in theology. But he is talking about belonging together to the larger Body of Christ, the universal or “holy catholic” church, not the qualifications for belonging to a particular denomination.
Elsewhere in the same sermon, Wesley says, “A catholic spirit … is not an indifference to all opinions. … This unsettledness of thought, this being ‘driven to and fro, and tossed about with every wind of doctrine’, is a great curse, not a blessing; an irreconcilable enemy, not a friend, to true Catholicism.” The saying that all manner of theological teachings and opinions are welcome within one denomination creates the kind of indifference and unsettledness that Wesley repudiates. Wesley’s sermon is best applied to the future relationship between the UM Church and the GM Church as different denominations within the one Body of Christ.
When it comes to belonging to a denomination, Wesley says, “every follower of Christ is obligated by the very nature of the Christian institution to be a member of some particular congregation or other, some church … (which implies a particular manner of worshipping God; for ‘two cannot walk together unless they be agreed’). … I ask not therefore of him with whom I would unite in love, ‘Are you of my Church? Of my congregation?’” Clearly, in his sermon on the Catholic Spirit, Wesley is talking about Christian love embracing brothers and sisters across denominational lines, not advocating for a “big tent” view of one’s own denomination.
Trivializing Doctrinal Difference
At the beginning of his essay, “The Character of a Methodist,” Wesley writes, “We believe indeed, that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God; and herein we are distinguished from Jews, Turks, and Infidels. We believe the written word of God to be the only and sufficient rule, both of Christian faith and practice; and herein we are fundamentally distinguished from those of the Romish church. We believe Christ to be the eternal supreme God, and herein are we distinguished from the Socinians and Arians. But as to all opinions which do not strike at the root of Christianity, we think and let think.”
Plainly from this quote, Wesley believes there are certain foundational opinions or beliefs that are essential for being a Christian. The often-quoted admonition to “think and let think” does not apply to these foundational beliefs.
The Mainstream article charges that the church’s teaching “around LGBTQ marriage and ministry is a stumbling block to faith for many. It is standing in the way of our mission and keeping generations of people from a life-transforming relationship with Jesus Christ.” Traditionalists counter that ignoring Scripture on these issues contravenes one of the basic foundational beliefs of Christianity, that “the written word of God [is] the only and sufficient rule, both of Christian faith and practice.” This is something that “strikes at the root of Christianity” and therefore cannot be ignored.
We might note that there are many teachings in the Bible that might act as “a stumbling block to faith” and in fact did so in the time of Jesus. The fact that there is only one God was a stumbling block to polytheistic Gentiles. Jesus’ claim to be the Messiah was a stumbling block to Jews. Many of Jesus’ teachings were met with resistance and even caused some to walk away. Yet, the early Church never thought it was appropriate to further the mission of the church by discounting, watering down, or compromising on these foundational truths. In fact, it was the distinctiveness of the church’s teaching and proclamation that won converts in the early centuries. Compromising today regarding LGBTQ teachings would carry the same negative impact on the church’s mission.
The Mainstream article goes on to charge that a “legalistic adherence to a few obscure Scripture passages is exactly what Jesus warns against in the Gospels. We should not be caught up in legalism, and neglect ‘the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith.’” However, the article omits the next sentence in Matthew 23:23, “You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.”
Jesus does not set “justice, mercy, and faith (or faithfulness)” against “a few obscure Scripture passages.” It is not either/or, but both/and. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:17-19).
The Mainstream article concludes with the acknowledgement that “if our social witness does not align with our professed faith, then we are not only failing in our mission, but we are doing a disservice to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” This is precisely what traditionalists believe is happening in the UM Church. Progressives and centrists have taken their social witness in a direction that does not align with our professed faith. Many traditionalists have determined that they cannot continue in a church that is failing in its mission and doing a disservice to the Gospel.
These are deep theological difference that cannot be trivialized by saying, “There is a place for everyone in the UMC.” Who is right, traditionalists or centrists and progressives, may not be obvious for another 100 years or more (or until we get to heaven). In the meantime, however, it is apparent that we cannot live together in the same church denomination and maintain our separate strong convictions. As Wesley advocated in his sermon on the Catholic Spirit, we must allow individuals and congregations the freedom to follow their own consciences without coercion or penalty. That is one basic way we can love one another.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and vice president of Good News. Art: John Wesley at 85. Stipple engraving by F. Bartolozzi after J. Zoffany, 1760. Public domain, Wellcome Collection.
by Steve | Aug 16, 2023 | In the News
CT: Maui Fires Burn Site Where Hawaiian Queen First Brought Christianity to the Island
Tragically, in addition to the human lives, homes, and businesses, there were many local churches in Lahaina Town that were lost to the flames — including the historic Waiola Church, Lahaina United Methodist Church, Grace Baptist Church, and Holy Innocents Episcopal Church. Remarkably, Maria Lanakila Catholic Church is still standing.
Excerpt from Christianity Today: In Lahaina, local Christians grapple with the widespread damage. While the leaders of Lahaina Baptist Church were “amazed” to learn that their church was still standing—despite everything around it “literally in ashes”—all but two of their church families lost their homes. …
While Christians from all over have offered donations and prayers, it’s locals who understand the scope and significance of the loss, concentrated around the place where Christianity first came to Maui.
“It’s a historic town with a lot of cultural and historical significance for the Native Hawaiian people,” Rocky Komatsu, pastor of Waiehu Community Church, told Baptist Press, who compared the devastation to a war zone. “A lot of people talk about it as a tourist town, but it really is very important to the Native Hawaiian community.”
When Queen Keōpūolani—married to the ruler who united the Hawaiian islands, King Kamehameha—moved to Lahaina in 1823, she invited two American missionaries who brought the faith to the island. Americans William Richards and Charles Stewart taught Scripture to Keōpūolani and prayed with her, and she converted shortly before her death later that year.
After Honolulu, “Lahaina is home to the second-most complete complex of historic Hawaiian Christian sites in one place to be found in all of Hawaii,” said Chris Cook, an expert on Hawaiian missionary history. “The loss of all but the Lahainaluna sites leaves a major gap in the statewide census of intact Hawaii missionary-era (1820–1863) structures.”
Lahaina’s historic Waiola Church just celebrated its 200th anniversary. The church dates back to a service that Richards and Stewart organized in May 1823. Buried in its graveyard are members of Hawaii’s aliʻi, or royalty, including Queen Keōpūolani. Previously known as Waineʻe Church (Waineʻe means “moving water” in Hawaiian; Waioli means “water of life”), over the years, its building has been damaged or destroyed four other times by strong winds and fires, and the church hall was engulfed in flames in last week’s blaze.
“Buildings can be replaced, even though our church has an awful lot of history,” Anela Rosa, the church’s lay minister, told USA Today. “Our strength lies in our people, who are just as important, if not more.”
Read Morgan Lee’s complete report for Christianity Today HERE. Photo: Maui Landsat Photo.jpg
by Steve | Aug 11, 2023 | In the News, Perspective / News
Defining the Church
— By Thomas Lambrecht —
As folks consider disaffiliation from The United Methodist Church and engage in foundational work to start the Global Methodist Church, it causes one to consider the question, “What is the church?” Is the church merely a local body of believers? Is the church a denomination? What does it take to be a “viable” church? Does disaffiliation mean a congregation is leaving “the church?”
A recent article by Dr. Kenneth J. Collins, Professor of Historical Theology and Wesley Studies at Asbury Theological Seminary, helps flesh out our understanding of the church from a Wesleyan perspective.
Collins points out that John Wesley, Methodism’s founder, “actually employed two basic frameworks, not one,” when attempting to define the church. Those two frameworks help us look at the concept of church from two different angles.
The Institutional Angle
The first framework comes from the Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles, condensed and adapted by Wesley into our current Articles of Religion. Article XIII says, “The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments duly administered according to Christ’s ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.”
As the article states, this definition focuses on the visible church. It entails things that can be seen and verified. The key marks here are:
- A group of believers in Christ
- The preaching of the pure Word of God – preaching that is based on the Bible, without watering it down or changing it
- The administration of the Sacraments (baptism and Holy Communion) according to the directions given in Scripture
These three marks can apply at any level of the church. A congregation can be “the church.” An annual conference or district can be “the church.” A denomination can be “the church.” All that is necessary is for these three marks to be present.
What is a “congregation of faithful men?” Simply put, it is the presence of believers in Christ in a congregation (male and female). Collins notes, “Later on historians reckoned that this definition of the church, which informed the life of both Anglicanism and Methodism, allowed for the mixed assemblies of sinners and saints, of nominal and real Christians, that Augustine recognized in his own ecclesiology and played out in large national churches such as the Church of England.” In other words, the presence of some unbelievers or nominal Christians in a body does not nullify it being a church. As long as some true believers are present, the body can be considered a church.
Biblical preaching is an essential mark of the church. The preaching of human ideas, however lofty, or teachings that are divorced from Scripture contravene this mark. The consistent lack of biblical preaching in a local body or in a denomination could cause one to suspect it is no longer a Christian church, even if true Christians are present in the congregation.
The proper administration of the Sacraments is also essential. A controversy in 2018 over the worship practices of Glide Memorial Church in San Francisco is one illustration. In an open letter, Bishop Minerva Carcaño states about Glide, “Sunday Celebrations are uplifting concerts, but lack the fundamentals of Christian worship. Baptisms are conducted periodically but in the name of the people rather than from a Christian understanding of Baptism. Holy Communion was done away with some time ago and only introduced back into the life of the congregation this past Spring, but outside of the Celebration gatherings and with much resistance.” The absence of the Sacraments, or the administration of the Sacraments in a faulty manner could cause one to suspect that a body is no longer a Christian church.
The Spiritual Angle
Wesley’s second framework for defining the church is based on the four marks of the church lifted up in the Nicene Creed, articulated by the Second Ecumenical Council in AD 381. It states, “We believe in the one holy catholic and apostolic church.”
These marks are much more subjective and less overtly visible. In fact, Wesley maintains that the invisible universal church consists of all believers in Christ, no matter their denomination or nationality. Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, non-denominational, Pentecostals are all part of the universal church.
The “oneness” or unity of the church does not depend upon any kind of institutional unity. If it did, then the church stopped being a true Christian church in 1054 when the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics separated from each other. Christians residing in different denominations are still part of the one universal church. That means United Methodists in the post-separation era are still part of the universal church of Christ. And the Global Methodist Church (and other independent congregations who have disaffiliated) have not left the church but remain part of the universal church of Christ.
Disaffiliating from or leaving a particular denomination does not mean that one has left the church of Jesus Christ. Our unity is spiritual, rather than institutional. One can experience that unity in ecumenical gatherings where the name of Christ is lifted in worship and preaching. There, all serve the same Lord, regardless of what part of the Body of Christ in which they find their home.
Holiness is another essential mark of the invisible, universal church. Wesley helpfully describes it this way:
The Church is called holy, because it is holy, because every member thereof is holy, though in different degrees. … If the Church, as to the very essence of it, is a body of believers, no man that is not a Christian believer can be a member of it. If this whole body be animated by one spirit, and endued with one faith, and one hope of their calling; then he who has not that spirit, and faith, and hope, is no member of this body. It follows, that not only no common swearer, no Sabbath-breaker, no drunkard, no whoremonger, no thief, no liar, none that lives in any outward sin, but none that is under the power of anger or pride, no lover of the world, in a word, none that is dead to God, can be a member of his Church (Works, 3:55)
But who can judge the holiness of individual members? Who knows our hearts but God? We are all sinners and fall short in some aspects of living a Christ-like life. What “degree” of holiness is necessary in order to be part of the church?
The mistake we make here is trying to make the invisible spiritual universal church line up with the institutional church. The institutional church will never be “pure” in the sense that all its members are holy. To attempt to “weed out” any “unholy” or insufficiently holy members only does damage to the church. Jesus taught about this in the parable of the wheat and the weeds (Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43). When the servants wanted to pull up the weeds that were mingled with the wheat, the owner replied, “No, because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest” (vs. 29-30). It is only at “the end of the age” (vs. 39) when the weeds and wheat will be separated. God, who knows our hearts, is the only one who can separate the wheat from the weeds.
Accountable discipleship is the pathway to holiness, as the Spirit of God works within each one, transforming us into the likeness of Christ. We all ought to be accountable to live up to the ideals set before us in Scripture. Bishops and pastors ought to be accountable for their preaching, teaching, and leadership, as well. But grace and forgiveness are a big part of the discipleship journey. None of us is perfect, nor do we perfectly reflect the image of our Savior in all we do and say. The test of our holiness is our willingness to confess our sins, receive God’s forgiveness, and strive to do better. It is only when we turn our back on God, refusing to acknowledge our sins or receive his forgiveness, that we take the path away from holiness.
Integrating the Two Angles
The key point is that the institutional, visible church is not identical with the invisible, spiritual, universal church. There are members of the institutional church who are not true believers in Christ and are therefore not members of the invisible, universal church. At the same time, the invisible, universal church includes believers from all denominations, nationalities, races, and ethnicities. After all, Jesus was “slaughtered, and [his] blood has ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation” (Revelation 5:9). All these ransomed people belong to the universal church, no matter which part of the institutional church they are members in.
In a garden, there are certain plants, like tomatoes and peas, that need support in order to grow and bear fruit. So, gardeners set up structures like tomato cages or pea towers for these plants to grow upon in order to maximize their fruitfulness. Without these structures, the plants will not be nearly as fruitful.
In the same way, the institutional church is a visible support structure for the invisible, universal church. Different structures can help different parts of the church grow in that part of the garden in which they are planted. If a particular structure or denomination is not serving the purpose of fruitfulness for which it was intended, it can be modified or even abandoned. Only, whatever structures are used, they must contain the seven essential marks outlined above.
This is why some congregations are disaffiliating from the UM Church. They believe the UM Church is abandoning the pure Word of God by affirming behaviors that Scripture warns against. And they believe the UM Church is described by Collins as having “apparently abandoned the universal call to repentance, and therefore to forgiveness and holiness as well” with regard specifically to same-sex relationships and the church’s understanding of marriage.
When some believe the institutional support structures are not fulfilling their purpose of bringing about spiritual fruitfulness in line with the seven marks of the church, they feel justified in exchanging that support structure for a different one that holds more promise of fruitfulness. In doing so, they may be leaving one institutional church for another, but they are not leaving the invisible, universal church. In fact, they are attempting to be even more faithful to that universal church by disaffiliating. Let us pray that the new structures being built will be faithful to the seven marks of the church and yield even greater fruitfulness for the kingdom of God in the years ahead.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and vice president of Good News.
