by Steve | Sep 17, 2021 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
Segment of Michelangelo’s Creation of Adam (1511). Public domain.
By Thomas Lambrecht-
As Christians, we believe God created the universe. He created it with a certain structure. That structure is reflected in the physical universe – what we call the laws of physics (and biology). He also created the universe with a certain moral and spiritual structure – what we call the moral law or natural law.
When we reject the physical laws of the universe, we suffer consequences. We cannot defy the laws of gravity and survive. The same is true when we reject the moral and spiritual structure that God created. There, too, we suffer consequences.
I would argue that many of the problems in the world today are because we reject the structure of things that God has placed inherently in his created universe.
The Fall
Christians point back to Genesis 3 for the explanation of much that is wrong with the world today. We call it “The Fall.” It was when the first humans, Adam and Eve, chose to reject God’s structure and choose their own way.
God had said, “You must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die” (Genesis 2:17). But the serpent persuaded them with an enticing proposal, “When you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:5).
Adam and Eve wanted to be like God, able to make their own determination about what was good and what was evil. As my pastor pointed out in his sermon on this passage last Sunday, the irony is that Adam and Eve were already like God. They were created in his image. They were made to live forever in fellowship with him. They would have expressed God’s understanding of good and evil by virtue of their continued fellowship with him. But they instead wanted autonomy – to make their own moral framework. In doing so, they rejected God’s structure, the structure that he had placed within all of creation, both morally/spiritually and physically. As a result, the whole structure became warped and spoiled, leading to the experience of sin and evil we witness today.
The Consequences of the Fall
Because Adam and Eve rejected God’s structure, sin and evil permeated the world. No part of the world is untouched by it. No person is untainted by it. This is what we mean by “original sin.” As our Articles of Religion put it, “it is the corruption of the nature of every [person], … whereby [humanity] is very far gone from original righteousness, and of [one’s] own nature inclined to evil, and that continually” (Article VII). We cannot reject the inherent moral/spiritual structure of the universe without consequence.
In the process, Adam and Eve are separated from God, cut off from the daily fellowship that they once enjoyed with him. This is spiritual death, and it is characteristic of all people today.
Adam and Eve were also banished from the Garden of Eden and no longer had access to the tree of life. So they began to physically die. As the generations rolled along, the lifespan of people grew shorter and shorter, until we arrive at the biblical “three score and ten” (Psalm 90:10).
All the sin, evil, death, and spiritual dis-ease we experience is traceable back to the human desire for autonomy from God. We reject the structure of things God has created and end up beating our heads against the brick wall trying establish our own structure in its place.
Manifestations Today
Among many examples, we see this tendency toward human autonomy manifested in our inclination to try to determine on our own when life can begin and when it should end. The U.S. is one of less than a dozen countries in the world that permits abortion up until the time of birth. We ignore the God-given structure that creates new life within a mother’s womb, and we choose to end that life that is made in God’s image.
The reason most abortions are “necessary” is that we have also rejected God’s structure for marriage and family. Waiting for sex within the context and security of marriage is considered ridiculously old-fashioned. Rather than following God’s structure of building a relationship that is finally expressed in marriage and culminated in sex, we opt for pleasure first, relationship and marriage later (if at all). Babies don’t conform to this human-made structure, so unwanted or unplanned pregnancies are terminated, compounding the first rejection of God’s structure by another rejection. This is not to diminish those tragic situations when abortion becomes a medical necessity to save the life of the mother. Even then, however, we are cognizant that we are ending a human life, not removing a blob of cells, and we rightly mourn the loss.
Our desire to be autonomous leads us to contemplate physician-assisted suicide. We want to determine the moment of our own death, especially if we feel we cannot endure living anymore. There are times when people are faced with horrible physical or emotional pain that seems to justify calling an end to the suffering through dying at a time and in a way of our own choosing. We have both a desire and an obligation to extend compassion and mercy to all in those situations. We are compelled to offer help, both medical and psychological, to ease the pain as much as possible. But the answer is not to draw an artificial ending to the gift of life God has given us, violating that life-affirming structure.
We see this tendency toward human autonomy manifested in the attempt to remake gender into a personal and social construct, rather than a God-given gift attached to the physical reality of our bodies. Again, we must be sensitive to the very real psychological distress that some experience in connection with their gender. The answer is not to remake our physical reality to align with our perception of ourselves. Rather, it is to reconnect with the structure of things that God has placed within each person, where body, mind, and spirit align together in a human unity.
Redemption through Christ
Fortunately, God has provided a way out of the morass of human autonomy seeking. He sent his Son Jesus to restore the structure inherent in creation and redeem those caught in the trap of rejecting that structure in favor of their own invention. Coming to Christ for salvation, we voluntarily surrender our own self-will to his lordship. The futile attempts to create our own moral universe and the resulting sin, pain, and harm are forgiven – wiped away in Jesus’ death on the cross. His resurrection reestablishes the deeper logic of the universe under God’s sovereignty. As disciples, our minds and hearts are transformed in keeping with God’s will, not our own (Romans 12:2). Although imperfect in our attempts, we strive to grow in holiness, which is conformity to God’s way. By the power of the Holy Spirit, we are changed on the inside, leading to a change in our thinking and actions, demonstrating our allegiance to God’s kingdom.
This is what it means to be a Christian – not just a walk down the aisle to the alter, but a transformed life of discipleship. That is why it is so disheartening at times to see Christians adopting the world’s value structure, rather than God’s. Our modern society values individual autonomy in the extreme. As a result, each person becomes his/her own arbiter of truth. Rather than submitting ourselves to the revelation of God’s structure as found in Scripture and taught by the Church through the centuries, we deem ourselves competent to override the apostles and prophets of Scripture and honored teachers of the Church.
Yet, we do not rest easy as rulers of our own individual kingdoms and supposed masters of our own fate. We become unfocused and distracted in life, running after all the things our world values instead of the “one needful thing” that Mary discovered at the feet of Jesus (Luke 10:41-42). In the words of professors Jenna Silber Storey and Benjamin Storey (First Things, May 2021, p. 15), “we suffer from something like the pixelated vision of the fly.” We are drawn in so many directions that our lives are sometimes dissipated in fruitless activity.
To be effective as Christian disciples, we find our focus in Jesus Christ, the author and perfecter of our faith (Hebrews 12:2). He is the guide to the purpose and meaning of our lives. In his structure, we find true freedom. We can learn the lesson of submission to something and Someone greater than ourselves, finding our place in the God-given structure of the universe. Finding that place – our place – is the fulfillment of God’s intention for us, bringing him glory and saturating us with joy.
by Steve | Sep 10, 2021 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
What will the future of Methodism look like? This graphic illustrates just a few of the main differences and distinctives anticipated between The United Methodist Church and the Global Methodist Church (in Formation). Links to the primary documents are found in the article below.
By Thomas Lambrecht
What will the proposed new Global Methodist Church look like? How will it operate? In what ways will it be different from what we have been accustomed to in The United Methodist Church?
These questions weigh on the minds of people who are thinking about the option of aligning with the GM Church after the UM Church’s 2022 General Conference adopts the Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace through Separation.
Change is difficult for us human beings! We tend to prefer sticking with what we are used to. Of course, the whole reason for forming the GMC is because we believe there are some crucial changes needed in how the UM Church currently operates.
Forming a new denomination essentially from scratch is a difficult and complex undertaking. Most United Methodists have never read the Book of Discipline, and they trust their pastor, district superintendent, and bishop to know how the church is supposed to run. Therefore, comparing provisions in the UM Church’s 800-page Book of Discipline with the GM Church’s much shorter Transitional Book of Doctrines and Discipline would be a tedious task for most United Methodists.
That is why we have undertaken to produce a comprehensive comparison chart that summarizes the main provisions of the UM Discipline ,the GM Transitional Doctrines and Discipline , and the proposals from the Wesleyan Covenant Association’s draft Book of Doctrines and Discipline. The chart shows how most of the important provisions of church governance are handled in the UM Church compared with how they would be handled in the GM Church.
It is important to keep the three documents clear in our understanding. The Book of Discipline governs how United Methodist conferences and congregations function today. It was adopted by the 2016 General Conference (with a few revisions in 2019) and is the result of an evolutionary process extending back to the very first Discipline in 1808. We do not know what the UM Church’s Book of Discipline will look like after the realignment contemplated by the Protocol is accomplished, but we know that significant changes to the church’s moral teachings have been proposed.
The Transitional Book of Doctrines and Discipline will govern how the GM Church functions from its inception until its convening General Conference meets (an approximately one- to two-year period). It borrows some features from the UM Discipline and some ideas from the WCA’s draft Book of Doctrines and Discipline. It was drafted by a three-person writing team and then amended and approved by the Transitional Leadership Council, which is the governing body for the GM Church from now through the transition until the convening General Conference.
The Transitional Book of Doctrines and Discipline fleshes out in greater detail than the WCA draft book some of the critical elements necessary to have the denomination running. It elaborates transitional provisions that would help individuals, clergy, congregations, and conferences move into the GM Church. However, anything that was not necessary for the transitional period – such as the manner of selecting and appointing bishops – has been left for the convening General Conference to decide.
In order to minimize the amount of change that congregations would experience during the transitional period, the Transitional Leadership Council sought to maintain continuity with the current UM Discipline where it made sense – such as in the appointment process for clergy to churches (although enhanced consultation with congregations will be required). At the same time, some critically important reforms – such as shortening the timeline for candidacy to ordained ministry – were incorporated in the Transitional Book of Doctrines and Discipline as essential elements of the new church and features that would set the direction of the denomination.
Ultimately, the GM Church’s convening General Conference, composed of delegates elected globally from among those who align with the new church, will have the authority to formally adopt a new, more permanent Book of Doctrines and Discipline. It will undoubtedly build as a starting point upon the Transitional Book of Doctrines and Discipline. The WCA’s recommendations and other ideas laity and clergy wish to propose will be considered and potentially adopted by the General Conference. Notably, WCA recommendations not in the transitional book would not take effect unless adopted by the convening General Conference. However, they are an important indicator of the current thinking of denominational leaders.
The comparison chart is meant to be an easy way to compare how the GM Church will function during the transition and give an indication of some of the directions envisioned for its future. The chart may be reproduced and shared freely. Questions and feedback are welcome and can be sent to info@globalmethodist.org.
Some highlights from the chart, specifically referring to the GM Church’s transitional period:
- Doctrine– The doctrinal standards will stay the same, with the addition of the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds, and bishops and clergy will be expected to promote and defend the doctrines of the church.
- Social Issues– Church statements would require a 75 percent vote and would be binding on clergy and congregations (which implies there will be fewer and more general statements). Social witness in the Transitional Book of Doctrines and Discipline is two pages, compared with over 930 pages in the UM Discipline and Book of Resolutions.
- Local Church Membership Categories– Similar to the UM Church.
- Local Church Organizational Structure – Flexible structures allowed to accomplish the necessary administrative tasks.
- Connectional Funding (Apportionments)– 1.5 percent of local church income for general church work, 5-10 percent for annual conference, including the bishop’s salary and expenses.
- Trust Clause– Local church owns its property (no trust clause). Local churches with pension liability would remain liable if the church disaffiliates.
- Local Church Disaffiliation– Would allow for involuntary disaffiliation if necessary for churches teaching doctrines or engaging in practices contrary to the GM Book of Doctrines and Discipline. Voluntary disaffiliation possible by majority vote of the congregation. No payments required, except pension liabilities where applicable, secured by a lien on the property.
- Certified Laity in Ministry – Combines all types into one category called certified lay ministers, who can specialize to serve in any of the previous areas (e.g., lay speakers, lay servants, deaconesses, etc.).
- Orders of Ministry – Order of deacon contains both permanent deacons and those going on to elder’s orders.
- Length of Candidacy for Ordained Ministry– Six months to three years.
- Educational Requirements for Deacons– Five or six prescribed courses before ordination and four or five courses thereafter.
- Educational Requirements for Elders – Six prescribed courses before ordination and four courses thereafter.
- Licensed Local Pastors (non-ordained)– Grandfathered in, but transitioned to ordained Deacon or Elder.
- Funding for Theological Education– Theological Education Fund to make loans to students that are forgivable (20 percent for each year of service to the church).
- Retirement for Bishops and Clergy– No mandatory retirement, clergy may choose senior status. Senior clergy not under appointment are annual conference members with voice and vote for seven years. Thereafter, members with voice only.
- Election and Assignment of Bishops– Election process to be determined. Term limits envisioned, perhaps twelve years. Current UM bishops who join the GM Church will continue to serve. Annual conferences without a bishop would have a president pro tempore assigned for the transitional period.
- Appointment Process– Same as UM Church, with enhanced consultation with clergy and local church. Bishops must give a written rationale for appointing a pastor against the wishes of the congregation. Current appointments maintained where possible during transition.
- Guaranteed Appointment– No guaranteed appointment. Bishop must give written rationale for not appointing a clergyperson.
- General Church Governance– Transitional Leadership Council serves as the governing body until the convening General Conference with globally elected delegates.
- General Church Agencies– None mandated. Five transitional commissions suggested (compared with 15 UM agencies).
- Jurisdictions or Central Conferences– Optional, may or may not be formed in a particular area.
- Adaptability of the Discipline– Provisions of the Book of Doctrines and Discipline would apply equally to all geographic areas of the church unless specified. This implies provisions will be more general and consider the global context before being adopted.
- Annual Conference Agencies– Six agencies required, with additional ones at the discretion of the annual conference (compared with 25+ in the UM Church).
- Clergy Accountability– Similar to the UM Church complaint process, with stricter timelines and less discretion in dismissing complaints. Laity would be voting members of committee on investigation.
- Bishops’ Accountability– Accountable to Transitional Leadership Committee, global committee on investigation, and global trial court if needed. Laity would be voting members of the committee on investigation.
- Many more details, as well as the WCA’s proposals following the transitional period, can be found in the chart linked above.
My wife is a marriage and family therapist. One of her favorite questions to provoke dialog is, “How are things changing and how are they remaining the same?” That question is a fitting one to ask, as we head into a key few years of decision-making ahead. Hopefully, this chart can help provide some of the answers.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Sep 7, 2021 | In the News, Magazine, Magazine Articles, September/October 2021
The Rev. Rob Renfroe, president of Good News
By Rob Renfroe –
Not long ago I spoke via Zoom to the Zimbabwe General Conference delegation. They have asked several persons representing all theological views to talk to them about the future of the United Methodist Church. The man who spoke before I did would classify himself as a “centrist” with progressive leanings. He’s a genuinely good man and has been a good-faith partner in working for the separation that we desperately need. I respect him, his thinking, and his sincerity.
He was asked by one delegate, “What position will traditionalists hold if they do not join the Global Methodist Church but remain in the Post-Separation United Methodist Church (PSUMC)? How will they be treated?”
His answer was, “I cannot imagine a United Methodist Church without traditionalists being respected and put in places of leadership.”
That has been the line we’ve heard from most centrists and many progressives. Nothing will really change. There’s room in the big tent that is the United Methodist Church for all people and all opinions. There’s no real reason for people of good will to separate. And once the hard-core Bible traditionalists (the people that Good News represents) leave, the beliefs of reasonable traditionalists will be honored; and the PSUMC will be one happy, live-and-let-live family.
Again, I believe the man I described above and some others like him are sincere in their views. And I believe they are absolutely mistaken.
We have recently seen a rash of pastors removed from their pulpits by centrist/progressive bishops without consulting with the pastor or their churches – even though the Book of Discipline says they must consult. This has occurred in three different jurisdictions with three different bishops. Why? Because these pastors have made it clear they are traditionalists who support the coming Global Methodist Church.
Already, there have been several annual conferences where “centrist” and “progressive” bishops have removed traditionalist district superintendents and replaced them with others who share the bishop’s nontraditional beliefs. There is now no one close to these bishops who understands or represents traditionalists.
Many annual conferences have gone on record that they will disregard the Book of Discipline’s prohibitions of same-sex marriage and the ordination of practicing gay persons. They are presently ordaining practicing gay persons. Just recently a district in the Illinois Great Rivers Conference certified an openly gay person who performs in drag, Isaac Simmons, as a candidate for ministry. (Certification is the first step in a years-long process toward ordination.) Simmons recently preached at the church where he serves in Bloomington in his drag persona “Miss Penny Cost.” On a YouTube video Miss Penny Cost prays to Mary and refers to God as “Our Lover who art in heaven.” Drag Queen persona aside, a district committee in Illinois Great Rivers felt comfortable recommending for UM ministry a person whose theology cannot possibly be reconciled with authentic Wesleyanism.
Near the time of his crucifixion, Jesus said, “For if people do these things when the tree is green, what will happen when it is dry?” (Luke 23:31). It’s not an easy passage to understand, but the general meaning is that if people will do wrong when there is some kind of restraining influence present, what will they do when that presence is gone?
Up until this time, we traditionalists have been the restraint that has kept progressives from doing all they desire in remaking the UM Church. And still they have mistreated pastors and churches who hold traditional beliefs, embraced a progressive sexual ethic, and walked away from Wesleyan theology. When many of us, if not most of us leave, what will they do and how far will they go in the future?
It’s not hard to imagine because we have worked against their agenda at every General Conference since 1972. Once we leave, UM boards and agencies will likely again become partner organizations with the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, which supports any abortion at any point for any reason. The church is likely to vote to condemn and divest from Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, as has been proposed time and time again at recent General Conferences. When we are gone, every annual conference will celebrate same-sex marriage and LGBTQ ordination. In fact, there may come an immediate push to redefine marriage, so that it includes more than two persons. In a recent sermon a “centrist” leader said that the vision for the PSUMC will include the affirmation of “trans folks, bi folks, kink folks, poly folk, gender fluid folk and others.” Just to be clear, “poly folk” is a reference to persons who are simultaneously in relationships with several sexual partners. At General Conference 2019, nearly 40 percent of the delegates voted for the Simple Plan, which removed the prohibition against clergy being unfaithful in marriage as a chargeable offense. When traditionalists leave, that 40 percent will probably be at least 60 percent of the PSUMC.
Pastors who do not want to disrupt their churches will tell their people that nothing much will change after the separation. With traditionalists out of the picture, they envision a golden age of peace and understanding will break out within the PSUMC and everyone will be welcome.
But if centrists and progressives do these things when the tree is green, what will happen when it is dry? Embracing the LGBTQ agenda is a justice issue for them. As we have seen in The Episcopal Church, what starts out as permitted soon becomes encouraged and eventually becomes mandatory. “Centrist” pastors will tell their congregations that nothing will change. They may even believe that. But everything will change. There is no energy behind the centrist movement any longer. Those who now dominate meetings held by those with nontraditional beliefs are not the centrists but the progressives. Progressive, woke young clergy do not look up to, and will not be deterred by, middle-aged, primarily white centrists who believe in justice by half-measures. And the progressives will win the day.
Eventually, one can foresee the PSUMC becoming a thoroughly progressive denomination that will not allow for freedom of conscience or practice. And the old centrist guard will not be able to stop the march towards a church that is devoid of traditional beliefs and practices.
It is not surprising that centrist leaders cannot see where the PSUMC is headed. They haven’t wanted to see where the church has been headed for the past 20 years – even though we told them that separation was coming. Consequently, we had to go through several destructive General Conferences and many people have been deeply and unnecessarily hurt, waiting for these leaders to grasp the inevitable. If some in the church now want to trust what these same leaders say they see for the future of the PSUMC after we’re gone – mutual respect, traditionalists being placed in positions of influence and authority, local churches enjoying a real measure of autonomy – they are free to do so. They are also free to take the words of Jesus seriously. “For if people do these things when the tree is green, what will happen when it is dry?”
by Steve | Sep 3, 2021 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
 Photo Courtesy of Shutterstock. By Thomas Lambrecht –
Labor Day is a holiday in honor of work. Too often, Christians have adopted a secular understanding of work. We view it either as drudgery or as an idol to which we devote all our time and energy. But work is a spiritual endeavor. We are to approach our work as we do everything else in life – under the lordship of Jesus Christ. How would Jesus have us view work? How would Jesus want us to function at work?
The first thing to understand is that work is part of God’s plan for us. When God created us, he gave us work to do. “The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it” (Genesis 2:15). Humanity is given the gift of cultivating the beautiful world in which we live, improving and developing it according to the creativity God bestowed on us. And we are to do so in a way that cares for and preserves the beauty of God’s world that he has entrusted to us.
“For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do” (Ephesians 2:10). These “good works” are not just what we traditionally think of as works of mercy or kindness toward others, but includes all the work we do. Everything we do ought to be working for the good of others.
Even Jesus worked, both as a carpenter with his father, and then when he went about his heavenly father’s business. He said, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working. … For the works that the Father has given me to finish – the very works that I am doing – testify that the Father has sent me” (John 5:17, 36).
Working is not a result of the Fall of Genesis 3, where humanity rebelled against God, but is an inherent part of being human, as God designed us.
Therefore, we ought to pursue our work, whether as a stay-a-home parent, an executive, a plumber, a teacher, or whatever we do, as a part of God’s calling on our life. The word “vocation” means “calling.” Our work is what God has called us to do with our lives, our vocation. It does not have to relate to church or religious work. Any work that we do can be an expression of God’s calling on our life and a demonstration of our faith.
Further, our work can be an expression of our gifts and personality. Our temperament, talents, and life experience suit us for certain kinds of work, and the way we do our work can also express who we are. This, too, is part of what it means to see work as a vocation.
John Wesley, Methodism’s founder, gives us some practical teaching on a theology of work in his sermon, The Use of Money. He fleshes out some implications of owning Jesus as Lord of our work life.
Governing What Work We Do
The first consideration is to choose work that honors God. Again, that does not limit our work to religious or charitable work. Any work that we do that makes life better for others is a work that honors God.
Wesley reminds us “we may not engage or continue in any sinful trade, any that is contrary to the law of God, or of our country.” In Wesley’s day, that was engaging in smuggling and black market trading that was rampant as a way to avoid paying customs duties on imported goods. In our own day, there are any number of lines of work that are either unethical, illegal, or immoral, which are therefore prohibited to the Christian. As Wesley puts it, anything that we cannot do “without cheating or lying, or conformity to some custom which is not consistent with a good conscience” is off-limits to Christians.
Wesley further teaches that we ought not to engage in work at the expense of our life or our health. The gift of our life is too precious to forfeit for the sake of earning a living. He extends that caution to “any business which necessarily deprives us of proper seasons for food and sleep in such a proportion as our nature requires.” While there are some lines of work that are inherently unhealthy and dangerous to life – coal mining, for example – there are other lines of work that might only be unhealthy for a person with a weak constitution. I could never be a dock worker! So the decision on whether a particular job is too injurious to our health might be an individual decision.
This acknowledgement brings up the special case of people serving in the military or as police or fire fighters. These are dangerous and potentially unhealthy. But they are undertaken specifically to help others in a sacrificial way. Just as Jesus laid down his life for us, there are those who willingly risk life and limb to serve and protect the safety of others. This is a laudable exception to Wesley’s rule.
It should go without saying that any work that harms others is something we ought not pursue. Wesley was against the manufacture and sale of “spirituous liquor” – alcoholic beverages that were more potent than wine or beer. This aversion was because he saw the daily consequences of addiction to cheap gin played out on the streets and communities of England. Perhaps in our time this would refer to the tobacco industry and certainly to the illegal drug trade. A more subtle example for Wesley was doctors who prolonged the illnesses of their patients in order to collect more fees. Payday lenders who charge exorbitant interest today might fit into that category.
At any rate, it is important to assess our career or job choices in light of whether we can engage in them while being consistent with our Christian values. The One who feeds the birds of the air and clothes the flowers of the field will surely provide for us through a type of work that honors him and is beneficial to others.
Governing How We Work
Once having chosen our work and obtained a job, we are called to do our work in a way that glorifies God, as well. It helps if we can see our work as of eternal significance. How is your job beneficial to others? Maybe it is making a product that will make others’ lives better. Maybe it is creating a thing of beauty for others to enjoy. Maybe it is providing a service that helps others live a better life. Finding the transcendent goal in what we are doing, so that we are working for more than just a paycheck, enables us to carry out our work with a sense of purpose and meaning.
Finding that transcendent purpose in our particular work is linked to the idea that we work not for ourselves or for an earthly boss, but for our heavenly Father. “Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving” (Colossians 3:23-24).
The Old Testament Teacher writes, “Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might” (Ecclesiastes 9:10). Our diligence and effort reflect well upon the fact that we are Christians and is part of our personal witness for our faith. Part of that diligence in work is self-improvement. Wesley says, “You should be continually learning from the experience of others or from your own experience, reading, and reflection, to do everything you have to do better today than you did yesterday.”
At the same time, we need to pursue work-life balance. Working seven days a week or being available to our employer 24 hours a day (except in case of emergency) is unhealthy and unsustainable. Our work should not harm our family life or get in the way of our relationships with our spouse or children.
Love and concern for others ought to guide how we treat customers and co-workers. Our contact with them makes them our neighbors, whom we are to love as we love ourselves. This means acting toward them with honesty and integrity, giving them the benefit of the doubt, and striving to be an encouragement rather than a negative influence on their day.
We cannot go wrong in applying the words of Paul, “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. … It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres” (I Corinthians 13:4-7). Treating others with love in our work environment will not only reflect Christ, it will help change the world.
During college, I attended a church where one of the congregation’s leaders was the manager of the local bookstore. A friend who worked for him told me that, while the man might be a pious leader in the church, he treated his bookstore employees harshly and was stingy with pay. It left a bad taste in my friend’s mouth that a man who claimed to be not only a Christian, but a church leader, did not carry his faith over into his working environment.
Work is the one activity that accounts for the most of our time and effort in life. We have the chance to see our work as an extension of our faith, as a way to make the world a better place, and as a way to witness to others about the goodness of the Lord. This Labor Day, let’s take time to reevaluate if we are doing the right kind of work in the right way to make that vision a reality. |
|
| Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News. |
|
by Steve | Aug 31, 2021 | In the News
Statement from Mt. Bethel UM Church, Marietta, Georgia:
The Mt. Bethel members authorized by the church’s Administrative Council to mediate, along with legal counsel, met [August 28, 2021] in good faith with legal representatives of the North Georgia Annual Conference (NGAC) in a professionally mediated session.
The representatives of Mt. Bethel were there endeavoring to arrive at a compromise that would result in a resolution to the current dispute between Mt. Bethel and the NGAC.
The mediation was not successful and an impasse was declared by the Trustees of the NGAC. However, we remain committed to finding a solution outside of the legal system.
Statement from North Georgia Annual Conference:
On Saturday, August 28, 2021, The Trustees of the North Georgia Conference of The United Methodist Church, Inc. and Mt. Bethel United Methodist Church, Inc. took part in a day-long mediation searching for ways to resolve ongoing issues.
A good faith effort was made by all parties, but an agreement could not be reached. Conference leaders are now discerning next steps.
“The representatives of the Conference entered this process open and willing to fully participate in mediation as a way to resolve this matter,” said Julie Childs, chair of the Conference Board of Trustees. “We remain committed to reaching a resolution that honors the mission of The United Methodist Church and our responsibilities as leaders.”
by Steve | Aug 27, 2021 | In the News, Magazine
Photo Courtesy of Alex Grodkiewicz(Unsplash).
By Thomas Lambrecht –
In a sermon preached in the run-up to the 2019 General Conference, Bishop Elaine Stanovsky (Greater Northwest Episcopal Area) promoted the One Church Plan and her vision for the inclusiveness of the church. That vision reflects the understanding of the majority of centrists and progressives in United Methodism. Her sermon is not a systematic treatment of the idea of inclusiveness, but it contains some perspectives and assertions that illustrate the theological gulf existing in United Methodism today. (Thanks to Scott Fritzsche , United Methodist blogger, for pointing out this sermon.)
Handling Scripture
Stanovsky outlines how she believes we ought to read and use the Bible in our theology. “When it comes to the Bible, people make choices about how they listen to what they find there; which stories they let shape and inform their lives, and which they let fade into the background of timebound inscrutability. … People are looking for a biblical story to emerge that deserves to be called ‘good news.’ And when they go searching in the Bible, some passages speak to them, and others they set aside. … The challenge for people like you and me is to find the Good News in the Bible. When we find that, we can let the rest recede into the background.”
There is no question that some passages of Scripture speak more clearly and meaningfully to our current circumstances than other passages do. That is why we can read the Bible today and find something fresh and relevant to our lives that we never saw before, or at least that never spoke to us in the same way before. God’s Word is truly “living and active!”
At the same time, we cannot let our personal, devotional reading of Scripture be the end of our theological engagement with the Bible. Stanovsky notes that the Bible “is so thick and has so many stories, you can find almost any message there.” Reading it only for “what speaks to me” runs the risk of finding in Scripture only what we want to see. Reading it “to find the Good News in the Bible” puts us in the position of determining what “good news” is. We become the arbiters of what the Bible means and teaches, which means we have just created our own personalized religion.
Throughout the history of the Church, it has been recognized that the Bible cannot be simply the property of individuals to make of it what they will. Rather, the Bible is to be interpreted and understood by the Church as a whole, in community. A good example of that is the first Jerusalem Council (Acts 15). The apostles and elders gathered together to discuss and determine what the teaching and moral stance of the church would be, based on Scripture as understood collectively. And the “collective” that interprets Scripture is not limited to just certain Christian scholars and leaders of the church in one nation at one time. Rather, the collective extends back 2,000 years through the history of the church and across the globe.
Stanovsky’s and others’ approach to Scripture makes it easy to “set aside” biblical teachings we do not want to hear or that do not fit our preconceived idea of what the Christian faith is all about. In this case, it enables her to set aside the passages in the Bible that speak about the meaning of marriage and sexuality because they do not agree with her understanding of inclusiveness. She and others can put aside 3,000 years of consistent biblical understanding by both Judaism and the Christian Church in favor of whatever they define as “good news” for today. Our different approaches to Scripture yield a deep difference in theology and moral teaching, particularly in this area of inclusiveness.
All Means All
Stanovsky states, “Some leaders in our Church are asserting that homosexuality is a sin, and that people who choose a life of sin should not be fully accepted in the Church.” She sees the Traditional Plan that was eventually adopted by the 2019 General Conference as “a desperate attempt to define once and for all who is ‘inside’ and who is ‘out.’”
This is a misunderstanding of the traditional position. For traditionalists, it is not a matter of people being accepted in the church or not. Rather, it is a matter of what behavior promotes God-ordained human flourishing and what does not. By performing same-sex marriages, blessing same-sex unions, and ordaining partnered gays and lesbians, the church would be sanctioning relationships that the Bible does not.
Stanovsky goes on, “But in the Bible, in the ‘good news’ section of the Bible, Jesus said, ‘Let the little children come to me, and do not stop them.’ … He invites tax collectors, a woman with a flow of blood, a lame man, a blind man, raving lunatics, lepers, women of questionable reputation, people on their death beds, Samaritans, … a Roman military commander, an Ethiopian Eunuch. … In the gospel of Matthew, Jesus says, ‘Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest’” (emphasis original). In keeping with her approach to the Bible, Stanovsky accepts these “good news” parts of the Bible, while setting aside other parts of the Bible that might contradict or at least temper this message of inclusion.
Stanovsky’s application of these parts of Scripture confuses welcome and invitation with discipleship. Jesus (and by extension the Church) does and ought to welcome and invite all people to come and follow Jesus. The front door of the Church ought to be wide open to everyone.
Once in the door, however, the invitation is to a life of transformative discipleship. The cliché expression is that Jesus accepts us as we are, but he loves us too much to leave us that way.
The provocative illustration of this insight is the parable of the wedding banquet (Matthew 22:1-14). In the story, a king invites many people to a wedding banquet for his son. But the people invited do not show up, despite repeated invitations and pleading. So, the king tells his servants to “go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.” They “gathered all the people they could find, the bad as well as the good, and the wedding hall was filled with guests.”
“But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. He asked, ‘How did you get in here without wedding clothes, friend?’ The man was speechless. Then the king told the attendants, ‘Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ For many are invited, but few are chosen.”
The first group of potential guests refused to come and thereby excluded themselves from God’s reign. The second group, both bad and good, came to the feast as they were, where the king provided them with wedding clothes to wear. But one guest refused to put on the provided wedding clothes. He was unwilling to change. He was good enough as he was, he thought. But he excluded himself from God’s reign by his reliance on his own goodness. “For many are invited, but few [show by their response that they] are chosen.”
The invitation to come to Jesus is all-inclusive. None of us is able to come on our own, apart from the grace of God. We do not rely on our own goodness or merit, but only on the grace and mercy of our crucified and risen Lord.
Entering God’s reign, however, is for those who respond to the invitation in faith and obedience to the way of discipleship. Jesus said, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’” (Matthew 7:21-23).
I make no judgment here about any individual person’s standing with God. Thankfully, the Lord determines who is “in” and who is “out.” The point is that not everyone will be saved – a tragic reality that ought to spur our motivation to share the faith with everyone in both word and deed. It is the Church’s job to teach and proclaim the faith, realizing that not everyone will respond. To focus in that task on inclusion without fostering obedience to God’s will is to miss a big part of the Gospel. An essential element of faith is striving to do God’s will and live in a way that pleases him.
Of course, it is nearly impossible perfectly and consistently to do the will of our heavenly Father. One of the most popular Methodist sayings is that “we are going on to perfection.” (Translation: we just blew it!) Stanovsky acknowledges this when she says, “In this way, God works in us and through us, to guide us toward loving with a perfect love. To be made perfect in love in this life.” Striving toward perfect love is required of all who would name the name of Christ.
That perfect love is made manifest in obedience to God. As Jesus said, “If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commands and remain in his love” (John 15:10). Or as John puts it, “If anyone obeys [Christ’s] word, love for God is truly made complete in them” (I John 2:5).
The Point of Our Disagreement
We somewhat agree on the goal: everyone is invited, and we ought to strive to be made perfect in love by doing God’s will. The disagreement is not over inclusion – who is “in” and who is “out” – but over what God’s will is. Centrists and progressives believe it is God’s will for same-sex attracted persons to be able to live out and express their sexuality as they feel inclined with persons of the same sex. Traditionalists believe that we ought to all live out our sexuality within the boundaries of monogamous, heterosexual marriage, according to God’s will expressed in the consistent teaching of Scripture.
I could respond further to other aspects of Stanovsky’s sermon. Fritzsche in the post linked up above demonstrates how Stanovsky (and many progressives and centrists) do not take proper account of the doctrine of original sin and its effects on human sexuality.
But I think the core of the disagreement over inclusiveness is confusion between hospitality and discipleship. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, German pastor and theologian during World War II, famously wrote in The Cost of Discipleship, “When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die.” The Church’s job is not to be hospitable and make us comfortable with the way we are or to feel content in our sin. Rather, it’s job is to invite us to be crucified with Christ – putting to death the old person with its sinful habits and shortcomings – and be raised to a new life in Christ – by his grace putting on a new self that is clothed in the fruit of the Spirit and living in perfect harmony with God’s intention for a life of human flourishing.
No one ought to be under the illusion that it is easy to be a Christian. We all have our sins and wounds to overcome (hence, the importance in holding to the doctrine of original sin). As another cliché puts it, we are all on level ground at the foot of the cross. None of us can make this discipleship journey by our own strength. We need the supernatural power of God at work in us, and we need the encouragement and accountability of each other in the Body of Christ. It is simply our failure to agree on the standards we are to be accountable to that is leading us to the need to walk separately in different denominations.
