by Steve | Jul 13, 2021 | In the News
Mt Bethel United Methodist Church.
Statement by Mt. Bethel United Methodist Church
Regarding North Georgia Conference UMC Bishop Sue Haupert-Johnson’s Move to Close Mt. Bethel UMC’s Doors and Seize its Assets
July 13, 2021
Bishop Sue Haupert-Johnson of the North Georgia Conference of the United Methodist Church continues to escalate a crisis of her own making at Cobb County’s Mt. Bethel United Methodist Church. Originally claiming she wanted to move Rev. Dr. Jody Ray, the church’s senior pastor, to a conference position dealing with racial reconciliation, she has since changed her story at least twice, in long, rambling, and defensive videos posted to the North Georgia Conference website.
Last night, Haupert-Johnson claimed, “exigent circumstances” exist at Mt. Bethel that threaten its vitality and mission, and therefore, she has moved to close the church and “transfer” all its assets to the conference “effective immediately.”
Unfortunately, it is Haupert-Johnson’s failure to competently engage in the United Methodist Church’s prescribed consultative process that threatens the vitality and mission of the North Georgia Conference’s largest congregation, both in terms of membership and average worship attendance.
Instead of following the course of action nearly all United Methodist bishops take regarding pastoral changes at large churches, Haupert-Johnson hastily initiated an ill-timed and an ill-considered move that not only jeopardizes great ministry and missions at Mt. Bethel but also the health and reputation of her entire annual conference.
She has failed to resolve quietly and amicably a crisis of her own making. Instead, she is now engaging attorneys to go to civil court to seize assets that the faithful people at Mt. Bethel have freely and joyfully given for sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ in word and deed: assets which will become property of Mt. Bethel once it completes a process for disaffiliating from the United Methodist Church, initiated in April 2021. The Bishop is purposely delaying that process.
While she claims she is acting out of “love for the church and its mission,” enlisting attorneys and the courts to seize assets is a strange way for a bishop to show her love for one of the healthiest churches in her conference.
The people of Mt. Bethel Church will do all in their power to resist the aggressive actions against their church, and they will do all they can to restore the reputational damage Haupert-Johnson is inflicting on many local United Methodist churches that simply want to do ministry without the drama of her intrusive and threatening actions.
-30-
by Steve | Jul 6, 2021 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
Wesley’s Chapel, Methodist headquarters London, England Photo courtesy of Creative Commons
By Thomas Lambrecht –
On Wednesday, the British Methodist Church became the largest denomination in Great Britain to endorse same-sex marriage. The overwhelming vote follows the acceptance of an initial report in 2019, God in Love Unites Us, followed by two years of discussion across the church’s 30 districts.
According to the BBC , “the Methodist Church is Britain’s fourth largest Christian denomination with about 164,000 members across more than 4,000 churches.” (British Methodism is a totally separate denomination from The United Methodist Church.) Methodists represent only about two tenths of one percent of the British population, whereas United Methodists in the U.S. represent about two percent of the population. In offering same-sex marriage services, Methodism aligns with other relatively small denominations in Britain, such as the Scottish Episcopal Church, the United Reformed Church, and the Quakers.
The two largest denominations, the Church of England (more than 16,000 churches) and the Roman Catholic Church (3,700 churches), do not accept same-sex marriage. Methodism will also be out of step with other British denominations, such as Baptist, Pentecostal, Orthodox, House Churches, and independent congregations.
The Church Times quotes the adopted resolution as saying, “The Conference consents in principle to the marriage of same-sex couples on Methodist premises throughout the Connexion and by Methodist ministers, probationers or members in so far as the law of the relevant jurisdiction permits or requires and subject to compliance with such further requirements, if any, as that law imposes.”
In order to accomplish this goal, the Methodists adopted a new definition of marriage: “The Methodist Church believes that marriage is given by God to be a particular channel of God’s grace, and that it is in accord with God’s purposes when a marriage is a life-long union in body, mind and spirit of two people who freely enter it. Within the Methodist Church, this is understood in two ways: that marriage can only be between a man and a woman; that marriage can be between any two people. The Methodist Church affirms both understandings and makes provision in its Standing Orders for them.”
BBC reports, “Church officials hope the dual definition will persuade conservative churches not to leave and protect ministers from discrimination claims if they refuse to marry gay couples.” The newly elected President of the Conference, the Rev. Sonia Hicks, said in response to the vote, “The debate today and our wider conversation has been conducted with grace and mutual respect. As we move forward together after this historic day for our Church, we must remember to continue to hold each other in prayer, and to support each other respecting our differences.”
The Rev. Sam McBratney, chair of the Dignity and Worth campaign (a pro-LGBTQ advocacy group in the Methodist Church), said, “We reassure those who do not support this move that we want to continue to work and worship with you in the Church we all love.”
Living with Contradiction
In order to live together and “work and worship” together in one continuing church, the British Methodist Church had to adopt an inherently contradictory policy. It now has two definitions of marriage that are simultaneously in effect. The result is that the Methodists have no coherent definition of marriage. It can mean whatever its members want it to mean.
This tactic in attempting to maintain some sort of unity is common across the world among denominations that are changing their standards on marriage. Most see it as an interim step to allow the “conservatives” to eventually change their minds, leave the church, or die off, until the church can unify around the more progressive marriage stance.
However, some traditionalists in Britain will be unable to live with the contradiction. The BBC reports Carolyn Lawrence, a former vice-president of the Methodist Conference, warned there was a “significant minority” of Methodists who were “planning on leaving or resigning their membership” as a result of the vote. “Today is a line in the sand for many people and seen as a significant departure from our doctrine.”
Methodist Evangelicals Together, a renewal organization within the British Methodist Church, advocates for “the original Wesleyan evangelical vision and the biblical and apostolic understanding of marriage as the life-long union of one man and one woman and the only appropriate context for sexual intimacy.” They report, “Sadly, several members, Local Preachers and Ministers, and even entire congregations, have already left the Methodist Church [in Britain] over the direction of travel it has so far adopted. If the proposals are ratified at Conference 2021, there are likely to be many more who will feel conscience-bound to leave.” There has even been some preliminary interest in traditionalist British Methodists possibly becoming part of the Global Methodist Church when it forms after adoption of the Protocol.
Slippery Slope
While the changing definition of marriage made the headlines, the British Methodist also overwhelmingly adopted a resolution “to recognise, accept, and celebrate the love and commitment of unmarried cohabiting couples.” This action is the natural outgrowth of rejecting the clear witness of Scripture regarding the God-given boundaries for human sexuality.
Once one sets aside scriptural teachings about marriage and sexuality and substitutes human reasoning and feelings, there is no limit on what can be found acceptable or even affirmed. Whatever seems right to people will become the governing standard. For example, there is no reason in principle why marriage could not be expanded to include more than two people under this approach.
GCFA Endorses Non-Binary Gender Identity
Meanwhile, in The United Methodist Church, the General Council on Finance and Administration has voted to expand the data collected on annual church membership reports. Where members are classified as either male or female, a third option will be added – “non-binary.” This third category will encompass those who do not identify as either male or female.
According to United Methodist News Service, the change affects only churches in the U.S., as the church does not collect local church statistics for churches outside the U.S. However, GCFA will also request U.S. annual conferences to report the number of non-binary clergy in their annual records.
“The board made the change after hearing from U.S. annual conference treasurers who have responsibility for collecting membership data from local churches,” reports UMNS. “We are having issues reporting people with pastors calling our office and saying: ‘What do I do here?’” said Christine Dodson, North Carolina Conference treasurer and the GCFA board’s vice president. “Quite frankly, I’ve had a pastor tell me, ‘I’m not going to force a person to choose one or the other when they have told me how they identify.’”
Only one board member spoke against the proposal. “I’m appreciative of the recognition of all God’s people, but I am also cautious that we are making a decision that appears to affect less than half our global constituency,” said the Rev. Steve Wood, who is also lead pastor of Mount Pisgah United Methodist Church in Johns Creek, Georgia. “I’m just wondering if we are creating more angst than we are creating benefits, so I have to speak against it.”
GCFA may have thought of this change as merely an administrative accommodation to make pastors’ job easier. However, by making this change, GCFA has implicitly endorsed a theology of gender that appears at odds with the simple and basic scriptural witness: “male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27).
Admittedly, there is nothing in the Book of Discipline that speaks specifically to issues of gender identity. This topic is so new that it has not been adequately studied or addressed by the church. That is why it seems unwise for GCFA to make such an “administrative” change that represents a theological understanding that has not been thoroughly thought out.
The trajectory of the British Methodist Church and the easy acquiescence of GCFA to a progressive understanding of gender identity shows the potential direction a post-separation United Methodist Church is likely to take. The GCFA decision reflects how the regionalization of the church might work, with decisions made that apply to some parts of the church and not other parts. Those who are uncomfortable with such a direction, recognizing that it reflects a different understanding of scriptural authority and theology, will need to find a new home – hopefully in the Global Methodist Church (in formation).
by Steve | May 28, 2021 | In the News
Photos courtesy of Bob Kaylor.
By Bob Kaylor –
Driving through the countryside of the Normandy region of France feels a bit like entering the world of an animated Walt Disney film. The green fields, bushy hedgerows, lolling cows, and medieval-period stone houses, churches, and barns call to mind many stories that we learn as kids – stories that begin, “Once upon a time…”
A few years ago, I chose this area because the D-Day battlefields have been a place on my bucket list that I have always wanted to visit. We based ourselves in Sainte Mere Eglise, the tiny village where the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions landed in the early morning hours of June 6, 1944. An effigy of Private John Steele of the 101st and his shredded parachute still hangs from the church’s bell tower, commemorating where he landed on the roof that night.
During that early morning, this sleepy Norman village quickly became a maelstrom as paratroopers landed in the midst of stunned villagers and scrambling Germans who had been fighting a house fire. The town looks today much like it did in 1944, but with a few more cafes, ice cream shops, and memorabilia stores.
I had arranged an all-day private tour with a local guide, Monica Baan, a Dutch resident of Saint Mere Eglise, who was very knowledgeable and who spent a lot of time interviewing veterans of D-Day, most of whom are gone now. The stories I had read in a myriad of history books suddenly came to life as we walked through the town and then drove to places like Utah Beach, Pointe du Hoc, Omaha Beach, and even to Brecourt Manor where Easy Company and Lt. Dick Winters of Band of Brothers fame fought their first engagement. It was stirring to visit those sites and be reminded of the immense task at hand that day for these soldiers, sailors, and airmen.
As someone with a passion for military history, I knew a lot about what took place, but Monica filled in some gaps with stories I had never heard. While driving through the Norman countryside, she stopped by a little church in the village of Angoville-au-Plain, a place so small that it’s barely noticeable in the midst of the bucolic backdrop of farms and fields. “I want to tell you a story you probably have never heard,” she said. We went through the side door of a small 11th century Catholic church into a quiet sanctuary where the story took place.
In the early morning hours of D-Day, thousands of U.S. paratroopers were scattered across Normandy and small crossroad villages like Angoville-au-Plain suddenly became hotly contested territory. As the wounded began to cry for help, two medics from the 101st, Robert Wright and Kenneth Moore, looked to set up an aid station and the village church seemed to be the best available option. They set about gathering the wounded from both sides into the church using a handcart and wheelbarrow they found, often exposing themselves to enemy fire in the process. They used the pews of the church as hospital beds and, incredibly, there are still several of those wooden benches in use that continue to show the stains of blood where those wounded were treated.
A hole in the roof, still stuffed with canvas, and a shattered tile on the floor are remnants of the intense fighting around the church where a mortar round entered the sacred space but failed to detonate. As the battle raged back and forth, American paratroopers were forced to retreat from the village and the medics faced a difficult decision. Their lieutenant wanted to withdraw them, but Wright and Moore insisted on staying to tend to the wounded, even if it meant their capture by the enemy.
Robert Wright described the scene in the church on the evening of D-Day: “By the evening we had 75 of them (wounded personnel and one local infant, in the church). Our own folk had come to tell us that they could not stay any longer. So we were left with the wounded. A German Officer soon arrived and asked if I could tend to his wounded too. We accepted. During the night, the churchyard was the scene of another battle. Two of our casualties died. But among those I could tend, none lost their lives. I tended all sorts of wounds, some were skin deep but others were more serious abdominal cases.”
The battle raged outside for three days, with the village changing hands several times. All the while, Wright and Moore kept tending the wounded from both sides. At one point, several Germans stormed through the door of the church but seeing that the medics were treating wounded from both sides they quietly left and marked the door with a Red Cross. In another instance, a German soldier came seeking treatment but Wright and Moore had established a rule that no weapons would be allowed in the church. They refused to treat the German until he added his weapon to the growing pile outside the church door. He would eventually do so and come under their care.
The windows of the church were all blown out and Wright was hit by a piece of the falling ceiling. He would receive a Purple Heart for it, but it was a medal he only grudgingly accepted. On June 8, a couple of days into the fighting, two Germans who had been in the bell tower of the church since before D-Day finally came down and surrendered to Wright and Moore, who immediately put them to work. The medics tended the wounded for 3 days straight with no break and no sleep, short on supplies and under constant fire, but they saved some 80 lives in the sanctuary of this little church. Many other lives would be birthed in the future families of those whom they saved. The pews that had been built for saving souls became the place where people broken by conflict and pain found salvation of their bodies as well.
As I listened to Monica spin out this true story, it occurred to me that Wright and Moore were doing the ultimate form of pastoral ministry in that holy place. They had been baptized by fire and ordained by duty to continue their work. They were priests officiating over a sacrament of broken bodies and shed blood. Their tireless work revealed a much deeper truth about what the church is about – a hospital for broken people, no matter their “side” or whether they are combatants or innocent civilians. These priestly medics seemed to understand this instinctively to the point at which even their enemies recognized the importance of the mission. They were being the church, not just using one for an aid station.
With this story echoing in my soul, I began to have a deeper awareness of the wounded people I saw around me. I noticed them walking around places like London and Paris, standing in doorways puffing a cigarette, or crammed into a pub looking for some solace or community. I saw it in the hollow eyes of business people walking quickly to a job they might have hated and in the immigrant trying to find his way in a strange new land. Casualties are stacking up in a culture where people have become commodities and pawns in a consumeristic war for their bodies and souls.
What sort of ministry will reach them? It will be the kind of ministry that will risk everything to save the people around us, no matter who they are. I loved the way one pastor put it in his welcome at one church I visited that summer: “If you’re our guest today, we want you to know that this is a place where it’s ok to not be ok. But our hope is that you don’t want to stay in that not-ok place. We love you enough to tell you the capital ‘T’ truth about Jesus Christ.” That’s a welcome for all – an invitation to add our weapons and conflicts to the pile outside and come inside to be made whole.
I spent the first part of my life and ministry as a soldier – a soldier bearing weapons of war and then the sword of the Word of God, which I have wielded in defense of the faith. Those are both honorable occupations, but standing in that little church in Normandy I felt a conviction that what the world needs the church to be right now is more of an aid station, and pastors to be more like medics. The cultural battles might continue to rage around us, but we have a job to do. It’s not to preserve a pristine institution, but to be the kind of place where blood stains on the pews remind us that our work is about saving lives, both bodies and souls.
Robert Wright would return to Normandy in 2002 for the dedication of a monument to what he and Moore did during those three days in June. He died in 2013 and is buried in the little cemetery outside that church in Angoville-au-Plain under a simple marker that reads “R.E.W.” He wanted his final resting place to be near this sanctuary of life that he and his friend created in the midst of horror and death.
I loved that this little church didn’t fix the holes, patch up the floor, or scrub down the pews after the war. The missing pieces of stone on the walls that were taken off by bullets and shrapnel haven’t been paved over. They did replace the windows, but with a tribute to these two medics who became saints. This holy place is now a monument to the kind of church God has called his church to be.
The Rev. Dr. Bob Kaylor is Lead Pastor of Tri-Lakes United Methodist Church in Monument, Colorado. He is a member of the Good News Board of Directors and a council member of the Wesleyan Covenant Association. He blogs at bobkaylor.com and is the co-host of the WCA podcast called Holy Conversations.
by Steve | May 21, 2021 | In the News
By Thomas Lambrecht –
Several weeks ago, I shared the story of the Rev. James Lee, a pastor in the Greater New Jersey Annual Conference at Bethany Korean UM Church.
His district superintendent notified him that Bishop John Schol was appointing him to a different, much smaller congregation. (Bethany is the largest congregation in the Greater New Jersey Conference.)
This notification came on the heels of the congregation joining the Wesleyan Covenant Association, and the appointment was made without any warning or advance consultation with either Lee or the church. In response, over 1,000 people signed a petition opposing Schol’s decision.
Bishop Schol in a public statement disputes our characterization of his appointment decision regarding Lee, calling it “false accusations” and “false information.” He took the virtually unprecedented step of outlining in a public statement the process used and his perception of how and why he decided to handle the Lee appointment in the way he did.
Schol alleges, “Good News or the WCA and its New Jersey affiliate never reached out to me about what occurred, even though I had sent the above information to them” (referring to the numbered points printed below). Just to be clear, he did not send information to us before we published our story, only in response to it. We checked the information Schol shared with us and found it mostly corroborated our story, with the exception of some disputed facts. We did not do a follow-up story until now.
We take seriously our responsibility to accurately report what is taking place in the church. People can and do take issue with our analysis and the conclusions we draw, but labeling our reporting as “false information” is irresponsible and untrue. Making room for the fact that different people can have different recollections or perceptions of how events have transpired, we have attempted to accurately report what took place regarding the appointment decision of the Rev. Lee. Since Bishop Schol has publicly shared about his appointment process, we invited the Rev. Lee to respond to Schol’s allegations. Lee’s responses and our analysis will correspond to the numbered points of Schol’s statement.
1. The central allegation in our story is that Schol made the appointment change without consulting with Lee or with Bethany UMC, as required by the Book of Discipline. The district superintendent simply notified Lee that his appointment would change.
Schol responded that “The initiating of an appointment change was the result of a four-year long process surrounding concerns of [Lee’s] leadership.”
Lee states, “I have been appointed to Bethany Church as a lead pastor since 2015. The concerns were brought before me and our church in March 2019, [when] at that time, the Bishop attempted to appoint me to another church. When the concerns were brought before us during our meeting with the Bishop and the superintendent in 2019, the bishop noted, ‘Pastor James is a great pastor with a great leadership, but just not UMC pastor.’”
There was no advance warning that Lee’s appointment was in danger, nor was there consultation with Lee and the church specifically about the proposed new appointment. As will be evident below, there was no ongoing dialog regarding any concerns surrounding Lee’s leadership.
2. Schol asserts, “Over the years, [Lee] was asked to move more than once, and on each occasion, the former pastor said he would not leave the church he was presently serving and that he would only serve his current church and no other church in GNJ. This is a clear violation of The Book of Discipline and the practices of itineracy.”
Lee responds, “The first time Bishop brought up a possibility of a new appointment was in March 2019. I was asked to be moved once.” Due to a request for reconsideration by Lee and the congregation, Lee was not moved in 2019.
Lee indicated his willingness to accept another appointment on the annual appointment report form. If Lee had made the statement attributed to him that he would “only serve his current church and no other church in GNJ,” Schol’s proper course of action would have been to file a complaint against Lee. A unilateral decision to move Lee to another church in response to his alleged unwillingness to move would be a punitive use of the appointment process and contrary to the Discipline.
3. Schol states, “I met with the congregation’s leadership and SPRC committee on more than six different occasions over the years about [Lee’s] leadership. The superintendent met with [Lee] and the congregation’s leaders even more than this.”
Lee responds, “I can’t really recall how many times we’ve met, but other than our meetings back in March 2019 (the Bishop came by only once, and the district superintendent met with our leadership twice during this time) when the possibility of my appointment was discussed (later rescinded), our meetings were cordial. Our meetings with the superintendent were usually over meals, and we talked about various aspects of ministries and apportionment. The discussions were not about my leadership.”
4. Schol states, “I supported [Lee’s] return to the congregation with certain stipulations.”
Lee responds, “[Schol] said that the stipulations would need to be in place ‘in order to even consider the possibility of rescinding the appointment.’ Bishop said even if these stipulations are in place, he would not be able to make this decision on his own, but would need to discuss with his cabinet of superintendents.”
5. Schol states, “We have a consultation process that includes an opportunity for a pastor to indicate any limitations (limited itineracy) that a pastor may share with the cabinet about being moved, and [Lee] did not indicate that he had limited itineracy.”
This statement actually contradicts point 2 above. How could Lee have stated he would serve no other church in GNJ, but at the same time have indicated that he was open to a new appointment?
Lee responds, “It was true that I had no need to indicate any limitations (limited itinerancy) about being moved, for I understood that as a UMC pastor, if I am called upon to receive an appointment, I should always be ready. I didn’t realize that such attitude and preparedness would be misinterpreted.”
The issue here is not that Lee failed to indicate he had limited itineracy, but that there was no prior consultation, only a notification about an appointment that appeared to be punitive in nature.
6. Schol states, “[Lee] was disrespectful to the district superintendent, and on one occasion indicated to the congregation that the bishop was to be forbidden to enter the church.”
All churches in the Greater New Jersey Annual Conference were allowed a four-month apportionment “holiday,” during which they were not required to pay apportionments due to the pandemic hardship. Lee explains, “However, the superintendent asked Bethany church to pay in full (100 percent), setting an example for other churches to follow, and the superintendent asked me to speak to the congregation to give more by going the extra miles. To that directive, I told her that I would not ask our congregation to do so during this pandemic, but to allow Bethany the same grace of four months’ exemption. I told her that we have members who have lost their loved ones, and they are grieving. We have members who lost their jobs and their businesses, and they are in financial hardship. We have members who were considering relocating to other states to find work to support their family. So, in the midst of all these hardships, I could not stand before our members and ask them to give more offering so that we can submit 100 percent apportionment. Because of this refusal, the superintendent apparently reported to the cabinet and the bishop that I disrespected her.”
Furthermore, Lee asserts, “The bishop was never ‘forbidden to enter our church’ as noted. However, I did share with our congregation that the bishop decided to stand against the decision of the General Conference and would continue to lead our GNJ Conference towards the One Church Plan conference. It was at this point I told our congregation that I cannot, in good conscience, open this pulpit to a bishop who does not abide by the Book of Discipline by which he/she should be governed and set an example, and above all, clearly stands against the truth of God’s Word and His eternal mandate.”
7. Schol states, “This year when a move was discussed in early March, the cabinet followed its prayerful discernment process and indicated a move should go forward.”
The issue is not whether the cabinet followed its prayerful discernment process. The issue is that there was no consultation with the pastor or the congregation, as mandated by the Book of Discipline.
8. Schol states, “Recently, following a sermon preached by [Lee], members of the congregation voiced their concerns. For instance, [Lee] used the story of Moses and Pharaoh, and compared himself to Moses and said, ‘I am Moses appointed by God to this congregation not by a man or an organization.’ He went on to say that he had let the leaders of the church have too much authority and that he would be taking back authority.”
Lee responds, “It is unfortunate that someone mistranslated the Korean sermon I have shared that Saturday (April 17th). That particular sermon the bishop is referring to is still online. By the way, our sermon theme and texts are pre-determined by our Quiet Time resource called the ‘Daily Bible’ which we have been using for many years. I never said I was Moses, but as God’s servants, we have all received ‘the call of Moses.’ I did say, however, that upon meditating on the passage carefully, I noted that Moses was appointed by God when he was sent to lead Israelites out of Egypt, and I said as God’s servants, we are not ‘appointed by men or manmade organization,’ but ultimately, God’s servants are appointed by Him. During the supervisory meeting, the Bishop confronted me with this same question. I replied to him that when he claimed to have made this appointment decision ‘prayerfully,’ I would assume that he prayed to God seeking His direction, so in one sense, isn’t it true that it was ultimately ‘God’ who makes the appointment?”
Lee continues, “I never said that I ‘had let the leaders (lay elders at our church) of the church have too much authority and that I would be taking back authority.’ Again, someone who translated the sermon has really taken this out of context.”
When the bishop notified Lee of his intention to appoint him to a different church, Lee consulted the lay elders. They recommended that Lee take a leave of absence, rather than contest the appointment. However, when some congregation members heard about this, “they became very upset, and started to blame the elders for lack of strong leadership and unwillingness to take a united stand against the decision by the Bishop and the cabinet,” Lee reports. “When I witnessed our lay elders getting the heat and the blame from the congregation members, I realized that I was wrong to delegate this decision upon the elders, placing this burden, and felt responsible for the elders being attacked and for the division of the church. I shared with our lay elders that rather than delegating this important decision, I should’ve been a better spiritual leader and be responsible to make decisions as shepherd of the flock.”
9. Schol states, “I offered the opportunity for [Lee] to continue to serve at his present appointment if he would apologize for his disrespect to the superintendent and acknowledge that he did not follow through on matters he agreed to. He indicated he could not do this, and without being asked, surrendered his credentials.”
Lee responds, “Bishop Schol noted that with recent articles and news that have been written and circulated through various sources (including the website and news article), harms have occurred to the denomination, conference, and Bishop and superintendent. He wanted me to take personal responsibility and to repair these damages by: (1) During Sunday worship, publicly acknowledge that I made a grave mistake ‘by undermining the authority of the Bishop and the superintendent,’ and to seek forgiveness publically, (2) to make this apology public by allowing the conference to upload my statement online on the UMC Website and, if necessary, print and circulate it ‘to correct any misunderstanding.’ And (3) he wanted me to apologize to him and the superintendent for publicly undermining their authority and their position by disregarding their appointment order within the UMC. Also, (4) I was to denounce what was written about this appointment in the Good News article, ‘Turmoil in New Jersey’ by Rev. Lambrecht. My statement for Bethany Church would have been used against other traditional church pastors in conferences outside of GNJ. Again, even if I were to make all these public statements, there was no promise of rescinding my appointment, but only the promise of ‘consideration’ and ‘discussion’ with the cabinet. The bishop stated that ‘it would be a start.’ In the end, I responded that I cannot make such statements with good conscience before God and cannot face my wife and my daughters if I agreed to these unjust stipulations, and therefore, I had no choice but to surrender my credentials.”
10. Schol states, “There are accusations that the appointment was because of [Lee’s] participation in the Wesleyan Covenant Association (WCA) and his stance against any change in The Book of Discipline about ministry with and by the LGBTQ. This is false. Our work over the past four years with [Lee] had nothing to do with his affiliation with the WCA or ministry with and by LGBTQ persons. The cabinet and I act with integrity in assessing and appointing pastors.”
To set the record straight, Good News did not make that accusation. We simply reported that was the perception of the lay elder in the congregation and the president of the WCA chapter in New Jersey. The lay elder, Mr. Sang Chul Shin, believes the action was taken “to separate the pastor from the church to weaken the congregation, so it decides not to leave The United Methodist Church for the Global Methodist Church.” Shin also believes the conference “wants to push out Pastor Lee because he has taken a vocal stance against the bishop’s position about homosexuality.” The WCA President, Rev. Beth Caulfield, said, “We are deeply saddened that one of our Greater New Jersey member churches would be targeted, especially after Bishop Schol has made statements that there would be no mistreatment of traditional churches or pastors through appointments or other actions by the Conference during this time of great division in our denomination.”
Lee responds, “At that time, I had a strong urgency to join WCA in order to venture into an uncertain future and prepare Bethany Church for possible decisions our GNJ Conference would make prior to the Protocol of Reconciliation and Grace through Separation being implemented. It was at this point all our lay elders agreed that it would be a wise and an appropriate timing to join WCA as a church, so Bethany Church joined WCA. I still remember, a few days after we joined WCA, I received a text message from the superintendent asking if it was true that the Bethany Church had joined the WCA, and I confirmed it as a fact. She was definitely not pleased with our decision. Even though they (the Bishop and the superintendent) continue to deny that this has been a factor in making this appointment, I have to strongly disagree, because the tension and the conflict have stemmed surrounding these events that related to these issues.”
Bishop Schol names “two caucuses that seek to divide United Methodists based on theological understandings, Good News and the Wesleyan Covenant Association and its New Jersey affiliate.” We respectfully disagree. Our purpose is not to divide United Methodists, but to inform them. For over 50 years, Good News has worked for the renewal and reform of The United Methodist Church, persuading countless individuals and congregations to remain in the church, rather than depart from it. We have steadfastly supported the United Methodist position on marriage and sexuality.
It is only now, when many bishops and annual conferences in the U.S. have made it clear they do not intend to live by the decisions of General Conference and our Book of Discipline, that Good News and the WCA have reluctantly acknowledged that two diametrically opposed understandings of the faith can no longer live together within the same denomination.
Even now, our purpose is to prepare faithfully for whatever comes next and to keep the grass roots of the church informed of what is happening. When people understand the situation and their options, they are better equipped to make an informed, prayerful decision as to their own future with the church.
During this time of delay, we continue to advocate for a de-escalation of conflict between the various groups of our church. Unfortunately, Bishop Schol chose, through his decision to abruptly move Rev. Lee, to cause division in Bethany Korean UMC and exacerbate the tension, mistrust, and hostility in the denomination. There was no urgent reason this appointment needed to happen this year. With General Conference less than 18 months away, it would be wise to avoid provocative actions that end up further alienating people from one another. We are committed to working for an amicable separation based on mutual respect and consideration. We hope others will operate in that same spirit.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
by Steve | May 11, 2021 | In the News
According to a press release, the National Chinese Caucus (NCC) of the United Methodist Church urges “all parties involved in the process of appointment to maintain a spirit of peace and goodwill toward those who hold differing theological and ethical values, while awaiting the decisions of the General Conference on the Protocol of Reconciliation and Grace through Separation.”
The United Methodist Chinese ethnic caucus has been consistently supportive of the denomination’s long-held views on marriage and human sexuality. The group issued a statement of support for the adoption of the “Traditional Plan” at the 2019 Special General Conference.
The goals of the caucus are to “advocate for the development and concerns of our ethnic Chinese-American churches within The United Methodist Church, and to formulate strategies for the missional priority of our local congregations.”
******
PRESS RELEASE
May 10, 2021
We received published reports that five theologically conservative senior pastors were moved from their theologically conservative congregations to other appointments when neither party requested a change: one in North Georgia Annual Conference, one in Greater New Jersey Annual Conference and three in California-Pacific Annual Conference. Four of the affected pastors are Korean.
Subsequently, the President of the National Laity Association of the Korean UMC expressed in a letter to Bishop Grant Hagiya of the California-Pacific Annual Conference, that their theologically conservative Clergy and churches were being persecuted. This matter also generates deep concerns in the ethnic minority, including Chinese, clergy and churches.
While wide deference is given to the authority and accountability of Bishops (Chapter Three, Section IV, Specific Responsibilities of Bishops), the Book of Discipline specifically states, “Consultation is a process whereby the bishop and/or district superintendent confer with the pastor and committee on pastor-parish relations, taking into consideration the criteria of para. 427, a performance evaluation, needs of the appointment under consideration, and mission of the Church” (para. 426). This same paragraph continues, “Consultation is not merely notification.” Further, para. 426 (1) of The Book of Discipline states that “The process of consultation shall be mandatory in every annual conference.”
Therefore, we urge all parties involved in the process of appointment to maintain a spirit of peace and goodwill toward those who hold differing theological and ethical values, while awaiting the decisions of the General Conference on the Protocol of Reconciliation and Grace through Separation.
Executive Committee
National Chinese Caucus
The United Methodist Church
by Steve | May 4, 2021 | In the News
Valley Korean United Methodist Church
By Thomas Lambrecht –
Over the last two weeks, Good News has shared information about pastors of large churches in North Georgia and New Jersey where centrist-progressive bishops removed the appointments of their senior pastors without the consultation required by the Book of Discipline.
On April 21, Bishop Grant Hagiya of the California-Pacific Annual Conference (Cal-Pac), through his district superintendents, notified the senior pastors of three large Korean United Methodist congregations that they would not be reappointed to serve their churches after July 1. In an unusual maneuver, the bishop simply informed them they would have a new appointment on July 1, but did not share with them what that appointment would be. He also did not give any indication that there would be further consultation with the pastors involved in identifying that future appointment.
This notification was also done without any prior consultation with the pastors involved or with their staff-parish relations committees, as required by the Discipline. The reason given each of the pastors was that they had “intentionally and actively advocated for [their] congregation, for other clergy and other churches to leave the annual conference, to leave The United Methodist Church. And this is a violation of the bishop‘s directives, his goals, his ministry, and it is counter to his vision for the mission of the church.” All the pastors have sought to do was prepare their congregations for the potential passing of the Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace through Separation and the decisions the congregations would need to make at that time.
Hagiya “has repeatedly talked about and visioned [sic] that we would have an annual conference that is a big tent kind of place, where all theological perspectives are taken into account and respected.” Given the way this appointment was communicated (no consultation), how it was framed (removal from the current appointment, rather than being offered a new appointment), the reason given (that the pastors disagreed with the bishop’s vision for the annual conference), and the timing (just weeks before the annual conference session), it is hard to avoid the implication that these were punitive appointment changes, meant to silence these pastors and other pastors who might have wanted to provide good information to their own congregations.
Hagiya’s vision is in essence a return to the One Church Plan that was defeated at the 2019 General Conference in St. Louis. His attempt to unilaterally impose that vision on his annual conference is contrary to the Book of Discipline and the actions of General Conference. His insistence that pastors refrain from educating their people about the option to withdraw and join a traditional Methodist denomination when the Protocol for Separation is passed by General Conference is not only poor leadership, but against the very spirit of the Protocol itself, which seeks to provide an amicable resolution of the church’s crisis, rather than continue the damaging winners/losers conflict.
The three pastors involved have requested reconsideration of their change in appointment. In addition, the Korean UMC Laity Network has sent the following letter to all active bishops of the UM Church.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and vice president of Good News.
* * * * *
Open Letter: Stop the Persecution of the Korean Church
April 29, 2021
Bishop Grant J. Hagiya
California-Pacific Annual Conference of The United Methodist Church
Dear Bishop Grant Hagiya:
This letter is tendered in the hope that it would receive your kind understanding and consideration.
My name is Stuart Ahn, and I am the President of the Korean United Methodist Church Laity Network in the United States. Our Network has five regional Vice Chairs, representing about 40,000 Korean lay members across the United States.
I am writing this letter on behalf of the council members of the Korean UMC Laity Network. This is to inform you of our great concerns following the recent notification of discontinuance of appointment of senior pastors of the Korean churches that transpired in the California-Pacific Annual Conference.
On Wednesday, April 21st, the Bishop of the Cal-Pac Conference notified the removal of the three Korean church pastors, after June 30th, 2021. The problematic reason is that “they have been inciting the neighboring churches and pastors to leave the denomination and not abiding by the course of our conference set by the Bishop.”
Even during these difficult times of COVID-19 Pandemic, the Korean church and its pastors have been faithfully fulfilling our ministry without skipping a day. From online worship to new ministries, community serving Food Bank ministry, the 40 days of early morning prayer services, and the launch of an online lay training program which have been amazing.
Where is the Bishop’s encouragement and consideration for the pastors that have faithfully served the church and maintained the solidarity of The United Methodist Church during the pandemic? Rather than supporting and encouraging them, the Bishop is leading the Korean churches into an unnecessary conflict and chaos by punitively appointing Korean church pastors who have held traditional positions. Where is the Bishop’s leadership toward the faithful Korean churches in this shocking, unilateral, and biased decision?
We do all know that pastors come and go. We do all understand that. And that is especially true in The United Methodist Church with the system of itinerancy. With all due respect, we recognize the authority of the Bishop over the appointment of pastors to the local churches, but not in this way, not for this reason, and not now.
Over the years, Bishop Hagiya has been personally and officially stating that we can coexist regardless of our differences in the theological positions, cultures, and traditions by respecting one another. You are aware of the theological position of many Korean churches, laity, and the pastors in the Cal-Pac Conference, which is a traditional position. However, you have accused the three pastors of encouraging and recruiting members and other churches to leave The United Methodist Church. We, the laity, can tell you clearly, that is absolutely and positively false. In addition, the conference leadership ignored the Book of Discipline and the decision to discontinue the appointment for not following the course set by the Bishop is a failure to comply with the procedures. Moreover, this is a baseless, punitive action, taking the Korean church lightly, and an insult to the entire Korean churches.
Removing Korean church pastors without prior consultation is a result of a failure to comply with the procedures in accordance with the Book of Discipline. This action is far from fairness and justice toward minority churches and Asian minority churches the Bishops has harped on over the years.
The notification of discontinuance, especially targeting the three influential Korean churches in the Cal-Pac Conference, is a racist action towards the Korean immigrant church. This chaos is causing great and irrecoverable damage to the church, and the action which the Bishop should have never taken. Please withdraw this unjust decision immediately.
We are a racial minority and also a minority in upholding what the Book of Discipline stands for, which is in line with the Bible. It is not only undermining the integrity of the Korean churches, but also harming it.
The pastors of the Korean church have carried out their responsibility of helping the laity understand the Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church and the Bible in the midst of the chaotic issue of human sexuality. This decision not only violates the amicable spirit of the Protocol of Reconciliation and Grace through Separation (which upholds “being held in abeyance” meaning neither side will face repercussions until the decision to separate gets approved at the General Conference), but also damages the Korean church that has a different theological view than the Bishop.
We’re also paying attention to the fact that Rev. Jae Duk Lew, Chair of Korean National Caucus of The UMC and the Pastor of Valley Korean United Methodist Church, Rev. Sunghyun Jonathan Lee, former Chair of Korean National Caucus of The UMC and the Pastor of Korean United Methodist Church of San Diego, and Rev. Nak-in Kim, Chair of Korean Caucus at Cal-Pac Annual Conference of The UMC and the Pastor of Bell Memorial United Methodist Church were notified of their removals on the same day. This is clear evidence that the Cal-Pac Conference is targeting and persecuting the Korean Church community. This is a punitive appointment towards the Korean churches that has a traditional theological position. The Bishop’s action is a testament to ignoring the Korean American United Methodist Church community across the country.
We do know that pastors are servants of the Lord who have been called and answered the call to our God. It is our sentiment that these clergy members are anointed, subjects of respect, and to be protected. Bishop, if any one of us or our community is insulted, or our core values are attacked, you should know that we will never take such insults cast upon us lightly. The decision to remove the pastors is a misuse of power by the powerful person like you while ignoring the Korean churches and insulting the faithful heart of the Korean UMC laity members. Such actions by the leaders of the denomination will only solidify us and begin a holy resistance to overcome the persecution of faith.
We do not want this kind of conflict. Thus, we’ve been minding our own business. But what are we supposed to do when you pick on us, who are the ethnic church and racial minority, in such a rude and ruthless way? However, if through this we can protect our faith, what we believe, then this will be our mission.
Problems with this decision:
1) This decision is an unrighteous and blatant persecution against the Korean church that complies with the Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church by the cabinet that does not comply with the Book of Discipline and the Bishop whose term was already expired.
2) It is an undemocratic argument that all churches and pastors must unconditionally agree to the course of action the Bishop mapped out for the annual conference.
3) The notification of discontinuance of appointment is institutional racism, shown by the denomination targeting the Korean churches, and this is the concrete evidence of Asian racial discrimination.
4) The Bishop and the cabinet of the Cal-Pac conference committed a faithless act and violated the spirit of our denomination, which supports mutual respect and reconciliation.
Our position:
- The Cal-Pac Annual Conference and The United Methodist Church Bishop and leaders, please immediately stop the unrighteous persecution against the Korean church.
- The Cal-Pac Annual Conference and the United Methodist Bishop should immediately stop the racially motivated malpractice of administrative actions against the Korean churches and the Asian minority churches.
- The Bishops of The United Methodist Church and the Cal-Pac Annual Conference should respect the traditional view of faith in the Korean churches.
- We request that the Cal-Pac Annual Conference and the United Methodist Bishop postpone the appointment of pastors in light of the delayed the General Conference.
- Please withdraw the discontinuance notice which had no consultation process with the SPRC as set by the Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church.
- If you do not respond to the plea of the Korean United Methodist Church Laity Network, we would like to inform you that we will not avoid taking the legal action against the Bishop, the superintendent, and the annual conference who are violating the Book of Discipline clearly.
Thank you for listening to us, and making an effort to understand us.
Peace and Grace to you from our LORD Jesus Christ.
Sincerely yours,
Stuart Sung Ju Ahn (Los Angeles KUMC)
President, Korean UMC Laity Network
Jeonggwan Choi, (La Palma KUMC) WJ Chair of Korean UMC Network
Yongjung Yun, (KUMC of Detroie) NCJ Chair of Korean UMC Network
ChulHyun Hwang, (Dallas Central KUMC) SCJ Chair of Korean UMC Network
Kwanho Choi, (Korean Community Church of NJ) NEJ Chair of Korean UMC Network
YoungRae Yoo, (KUMC of Southern FL) SEJ Chair of Korean UMC Network
