by Steve | Mar 26, 2021 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
By Thomas Lambrecht –
Freedom of religion is often called the “first freedom” because it is the first provision mentioned in the United States Bill of Rights. Many scholars believe all the other freedoms depend upon the foundation of religious freedom to establish and perpetuate the values that will sustain the other freedoms. The First Amendment of our Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
The definition of religious freedom has been contested since the founding days of our country. It has most often been called into question when dealing with a minority religion, since the practices of minority religions are often not widely known or accepted by the majority of our citizens. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) was adopted in 1993 in response to a Supreme Court decision that allowed two Native American drug counselors to be fired because they used the drug peyote in their Native American religious rituals. Muslims, Sikhs, and other minority religions have also benefited from the guarantee of religious freedom in the U.S.
Religious freedom has become a hotly contested political issue in the U.S. in relationship to efforts to remove discrimination against LGBTQ persons. Famously, a baker who declined to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding as an expression of his religious convictions was protected under the RFRA law. Now in Congress a proposed new law, the Equality Act, would remove religious freedom protections for those who cannot affirm LGBTQ practices.
Defining Religious Freedom
A recent commentary by the Rev. David W. Key, Sr., an ordained Baptist religious historian, asserts “religious liberty protects our individual right to worship how we see fit.” This limiting of religious freedom to the “right to worship” came to prominence during the Obama presidency and was one of the issues that contributed to the election of President Trump in 2016.
The question is: Does the protection of religious freedom only apply to our ability to worship God in the way “we see fit,” or does it protect the freedom to live our lives as our religion teaches us?
The wording of the First Amendment espouses both a freedom from and a freedom for. We are to be freed fromhaving a religion imposed upon us in the form of a government established church or religion. We see this tendency today in the country of India, where the majority of the population believes that to be truly Indian, one must adopt the Hindu religion. Conversely, the amendment says we are to be freed for the exercise or practice of our religion of choice.
Does the practice or exercise of our religion stop when we walk out the church door? Or is it only what we do in private? That is what defining religious freedom as the right to worship requires.
Christianity and most other religions are not simply a way of worship, but a way of life. A religion is a value system that governs our thoughts and desires, promoting a way of living out that value system.
The Apostle Paul writes, “Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God – this is your spiritual act of worship” (Romans 12:1). He is not talking about human sacrifice in a worship service, but about living our lives for God as an act of sacrificial worship. The Apostle James writes, “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world” (James 1:27). Again, religion extends to how we live our lives, here in caring for the vulnerable.
According to a Christian definition of religion, our faith is expressed not just in worship, but in all of life, which is in effect an act of worship to the God who made us. It is nonsensical to think that one can in church worship the God who reveals himself to us through his word and then go out into the world to live in ways contrary to that same word. Jesus rightly called people who do that hypocrites. (Of course, we all struggle at times to be faithful to God’s will for us, but to live a consistent, God-honoring life is our goal.)
The Question of Discrimination
LGBTQ persons are created in the image of God. God loves them unconditionally, and so should we. There is no excuse for demeaning LGBTQ persons or treating them with anything less than the dignity and respect they merit as fellow human beings. Any kind of violence or insult directed at LGBTQ persons is unacceptable and ought to be resisted by Christians and all people of good will.
At the same time, the Equality Act is attempting to impose a belief system (a secular religion?) on all U.S. citizens. That perspective affirms virtually any kind of behavior – heterosexual or homosexual – between consenting adults and enables one to remake one’s gender in line with one’s feelings or self-understanding.
How does that belief system work out in particular areas of alleged discrimination?
Within a secular society, what a person does in their private lives does not affect one’s employment, so long as it does not infringe upon the law or harm the person’s employer. But religious organizations (not just churches, but schools, hospitals, missions, and others) do still expect their employees to reflect the values of the religious organization. Should the government force a Christian school to employ a partnered lesbian as a teacher if the same-sex relationship is contrary to the school’s religious beliefs?
The Christian tradition defines marriage as between one man and one woman. The secular state can define marriage however it chooses. But should the government force Christians to affirm and celebrate the state’s definition of marriage, even though it goes against Christian teaching?
Should the government force Christian adoption agencies to place children with unmarried or same-sex couples, even though such placements run counter to the agency’s values that married parents form the best foundation and example for the raising of children?
Necessary health care is a basic expression of human caring for others and ought not be withheld from anyone for any reason. Should the government force a Christian doctor to administer puberty blocking drugs to a 13-year-old who is confused about their gender and wants to transition to the gender opposite the one in which they were born, despite the doctor’s religious belief that gender is a reflection of God’s creative intent, not to be manipulated?
Should a Christian student group be barred from a college campus because, while it opens its membership to anyone who wants to attend, it insists that officers and leaders of the organization must share the group’s Christian beliefs?
All of the above questions stem from actual examples of Christian organizations that have been taken to court in order to enforce the government’s concept of non-discrimination. They represent conflicts between Christian beliefs founded on Scripture and long-standing tradition versus the government’s interest in promoting the equal treatment of all citizens.
People of good will can differ on how they would decide these difficult questions. I would simply point out that there are some instances where the concept of LGBTQ “equality” is in major conflict with a Christian understanding of sexuality and gender. While all persons, including LGBTQ persons, ought to be accorded their full human dignity and respect, it would be a violation of religious freedom for the government to impose upon all citizens a particular understanding of LGBTQ equality that requires the abandonment of long-standing and well-supported aspects of Christian religious doctrine.
The RFRA act would allow such imposition only in cases of compelling government interest and in the least restrictive way possible. The Equality Act would undo these protections to make possible a broader imposition of the government’s concept of equality and weaken the religious freedom guaranteed by our U.S. constitution. A proposed compromise law, called Fairness for All, is supported by some as a way of balancing these competing interests, preventing unlawful discrimination while protecting religious freedom. (The linked article provides helpful background information.)
To restrict religious freedom only to overt acts of worship is to miss the point behind religion in general and Christianity in particular. Christian faith is meant to transform lives in accord with God’s will for human flourishing. To substitute the government’s definition of human flourishing when it runs counter to Christian faith is, in effect, to impose another religion, a secular one, on Christians. Such a forced substitution would put Christians today in the position of the Apostles Peter and John when they stood before the Jewish Sanhedrin and said, “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God” (Acts 4:19). Our primary allegiance is, and always must be, to the true Lord of the universe, not to an earthly state.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Mar 17, 2021 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
By Steve Beard –
Photo: Saint Patrick Catholic Church (Junction City, Ohio) – stained glass, Saint Patrick
While sifting through obscure Spanish colonial records, it was discovered a few years ago that the very first St. Patrick’s Day parade was not conducted in Boston, Chicago, nor New York City.
Instead, the Irish feast day was celebrated in modern day St. Augustine, Florida, in 1601.
“They processed through the streets of St. Augustine, and the cannon fired from the fort,” said Prof. J. Michael Francis of the University of South Florida at St. Petersburg, who discovered the document. The ancient records named “San Patricio” as “the protector” of the area’s maize fields. “So here you have this Irish saint who becomes the patron protector of a New World crop, corn, in a Spanish garrison settlement,” he said.
This strange twist in the story and celebration of St. Patrick, a fifth century holy man, is really not that surprising. Historians are constantly attempting to set the record straight. After all, Patrick was not Irish (born in Britain of a Romanized family). He was never canonized as a saint by the Catholic Church. Interestingly, there are two St. Patrick’s Cathedrals in Armagh, Ireland – one Catholic and one Protestant. Saint Patrick’s Cathedral in Dublin is part of the Church of Ireland – with both Catholic and Protestant clergy.
The legacy of Ireland’s patron saint blurs a lot of lines – but, he is notably worth celebrating.
Patrick was brutally abducted at the age of 16 by pirates and sold as a slave in Ireland. For six agonizing years in a foreign land, he largely lived in abject solitude attending animals. The Christian faith of his family that he found unappealing as a teenager became his spiritual lifeline to sanity and survival while in captivity.
“Tending flocks was my daily work, and I would pray constantly during the daylight hours,” he writes in his Confession – one of only two brief documents authentically from Patrick’s own hand. “The love of God and the fear of him surrounded me more and more – and faith grew and the Spirit was roused, so that in one day I would say as many as a hundred prayers and after dark nearly as many again even while I remained in the woods or on the mountain. I would wake and pray before daybreak – through snow, frost, rain – nor was there any sluggishness in me (such as I experience nowadays) because then the Spirit within me was ardent.”
Through a divine dream, Patrick was inspired to make his escape. His journey as a fugitive was, according to his testimony, a 200 mile trek to the coast. Further miraculous circumstances allowed him to wrangle himself aboard a ship to escape his imprisonment in Ireland. He finally made it back to the loving embrace of his family.
Years later, however, another mystical dream launched his trajectory into the ministry and, ultimately, back to Ireland. “We appeal to you, holy servant boy,” said the voice in the dream, “to come and walk among us.”
For many years, he trained to become a priest. Eventually, in 432 A.D., Patrick returned to the shores of the land where he once was held captive.
“Believe me, I didn’t go to Ireland willingly that first time [when he was taken as a slave] – I almost died there,” he wrote in his Confession. “But it turned out to be good for me in the end, because God used the time to shape and mold me into something better. He made me into what I am now – someone very different from what I once was, someone who can care for others and work to help them. Before I was a slave, I didn’t even care about myself.”
Noted classics scholar Philip Freeman, author of St Patrick of Ireland, points out the distinguished uniqueness of Patrick’s public vulnerability – a trait that was not characteristic of a man of his stature and notoriety. As an elderly and well-known bishop, Patrick begins his Confession with these words: “I am Patrick – a sinner – the most unsophisticated and unworthy among all the faithful of God. Indeed, to many, I am the most despised.”
“The two letters are in fact the earliest surviving documents written in Ireland and provide us with glimpses of a world full of petty kings, pagan gods, quarreling bishops, brutal slavery, beautiful virgins, and ever-threatening violence,” writes Freeman. “But more than anything else, they allow us to look inside the mind and soul of a remarkable man living in a world that was both falling apart and at the dawn of a new age. There are simply no other documents from ancient times that give us such a clear and heartfelt view of a person’s thoughts and feelings. These are, above all else, letters of hope in a trying and uncertain time.”
While there are many beautiful, miraculous, and fantastical stories about St. Patrick, his Letter to the Soldiers of Coroticus – the other document authentically written by Patrick – exposes his heart and soul. It portrays the character of a man worthy of emulation and celebration. His humility, empathy, and righteous indignation scorches the letter as he takes up the cause of the voiceless captives and powerless victims of slavery – a common practice in the fifth century.
The fiery correspondence addresses the horrific news that a group of newly baptized converts were killed or taken into slavery on their way home by a petty British king named Coroticus, known to be at least nominally a Christian.
“Blood, blood, blood! Your hands drip with the blood of the innocent Christians you have murdered – the very Christians I nourished and brought to God,” Patrick writes. “My newly baptized converts, still in their white robes, the sweet smell of the anointing oil still on their foreheads – you murdered them, cut them down with your swords!”
Violating cultural and ecclesiastical protocols, the letter was sent broadly and caused a stir. Courageously, Patrick launched a public ruckus – outside his governance – over the “hideous, unspeakable crimes” because he believed that God truly loved the Irish – even if church leaders elsewhere did not. Patrick’s vision for the love of God was expansively generous. “I am a stranger and an exile living among barbarians and pagans, because God cares for them,” he writes (emphasis added).
“Was it my idea to feel God’s love for the Irish and to work for their good?” Patrick writes. “These people enslaved me and devastated my father’s household! I am of noble birth – the son of a Roman decurion – but I sold my nobility. I’m not ashamed of it and I don’t regret it because I did it to help others. Now I am a slave of Christ to a foreign people – but this time for the unspeakable glory of eternal life in Christ Jesus our master.”
Having been captive, he does not write about slavery whimsically. He was an outspoken voice opposing slavery at a time when it was simply considered commonplace. Furthermore, he was a fierce advocate for those who were most vulnerable and abused in captivity.
“But it is the women kept in slavery who suffer the most – and who keep their spirits up despite the menacing and terrorizing they must endure,” he writes in his Confession. “The Lord gives grace to his many handmaids; and though they are forbidden to do so, they follow him with backbone.”
When Patrick heard about the bloody attack and abductions after the baptism service, he sought to reason with Coroticus: “The very next day I sent a message to you with a priest l had taught from childhood and some other clergy asking that you return the surviving captives with at least some of their goods – but you only laughed.”
In response, Patrick derides Coroticus and his men as “dogs and sorcerers and murderers, and liars and false swearers … who distribute baptized girls for a price, and that for the sake of a miserable temporal kingdom which truly passes away in a moment like a cloud or smoke that is scattered by the wind.”
In order to make his point, he prays: “God, I know these horrible actions break your heart – even those dwelling in Hell would blush in shame.”
With pastoral care, Patrick addresses the memory of those killed after their baptism: “And those of my children who were murdered – I weep for you, I weep for you … I can see you now starting on your journey to that place where there is no more sorrow or death. … You will rule with the apostles, prophets, and martyrs in an eternal kingdom.”
Even in an inferno of justifiable rage, Patrick extends an olive branch of redemption: “Perhaps then, even though late, they will repent of all the evil they have done – these murderers of God’s family – and free the Christians they have enslaved. Perhaps then they will deserve to be redeemed and live with God now and forever.”
“The greatness of Patrick is beyond dispute: the first human being in the history of the world to speak out unequivocally against slavery,” writes historian Thomas Cahill, author of How the Irish Saved Civilization. “Nor will any voice as strong as his be heard again till the seventeenth century.”
All around the globe, March 17 is set aside to honor a great man who overcame fear with faith, overcame hate with love, and overcame prejudice with hope. Although he had every reason in the world to resist the dream to return to “walk among” the Irish, Patrick responded to the God-given impulse of his heart – even when it was most difficult. He knew the dangers and challenges and returned anyway.
Patrick offered himself as a living example of what new life could look like for the Irish. “It is possible to be brave – to expect ‘every day … to be murdered, betrayed, enslaved – whatever may come my way’ – and yet be a man of peace and at peace, a man without sword or desire to harm, a man in whom the sharp fear of death has been smoothed away,” writes Cahill of Patrick. “He was ‘not afraid of any of these things, because of the promises of heaven; for I have put myself in the hands of God Almighty.’ Patrick’s peace was no sham: it issued from his person like a fragrance.”
Happy St. Patrick’s Day.
Steve Beard is the editor of Good News.
by Steve | Mar 12, 2021 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
The Book of Discipline. A UMNS photo by Mike DuBose.
By Thomas Lambrecht –
There are two proposals that would change United Methodism by creating different regional versions in the various geographical areas of the church: Africa, Europe, the Philippines, and the U.S. One proposal is from the Connectional Table and the other is from a group of delegates from outside the U.S. called the Christmas Covenant.
I have written about the Christmas Covenant before in more detail. At present, the Christmas Covenant seems to be the version of regionalization most preferred by church leaders. It sets up the UM Church in the U.S. as its own regional conference and creates regional conferences in Africa, Europe, and the Philippines. Each regional conference (including in the U.S.) would have the ability to change any part of the denomination’s Book of Discipline that it wants to change, except for items that the church Constitution protects or items that are protected by a two-thirds vote of the General Conference.
There could be different standards for clergy in each regional conference, different requirements to which clergy and bishops would be held accountable, different methods of local church organization, and different criteria for church membership, to give just a few examples. Each regional conference would create a different version of United Methodism for that geographical area. Regional conferences could even give annual conferences the ability to create different standards and requirements, as well.
Proponents of regionalization say that the reason for this proposal is to allow United Methodism to adapt to the different ministry contexts found in each geographical area of the world. They say that a one-size-fits-all version of Methodism does not work. In addition, proponents state that central conference delegates are tired of dealing with reams of petitions at General Conference that pertain only to United Methodists in the U.S. They want to focus on global matters at General Conference and allow each region to work independently on matters germane to that region.
Importantly, some proponents insist that regionalization is not an attempt to resolve the church’s conflict over human sexuality, marriage, and ordination. Some contend that regionalization can be adopted along with the Protocol for Separation to resolve our conflict.
However, some proponents and other church leaders have seized on the idea that, if regionalization is adopted, separation would no longer be necessary, since each region in the church could adopt its own standards regarding sexuality, marriage, and ordination. Such an understanding fails to take into account the real dimensions of our church conflict.
Regionalization for the U.S.
First, it is important to understand that regionalization proposals would primarily benefit United Methodists in the U.S. Those in the central conferences outside the U.S. already have the power to change and adapt the provisions of the Book of Discipline to fit their ministry and legal context. The 2016 General Conference even moved in the direction of expanding that ability to adapt the Discipline. In light of the crisis point in our conflict, that expansion was put on hold but could easily be taken up again in the future.
U.S. United Methodists were not originally given the power to adapt provisions of the Discipline for two reasons. First, U.S. delegates were always in the overwhelming majority and still make up about 55 percent of the delegates. Second, there is no one unified U.S. conference, as the country is divided up into five jurisdictions. Giving each jurisdiction the authority to adapt the Discipline was seen as a bridge too far, creating too much diversity within one country. Besides, U.S. delegates were essentially writing the Discipline for their context, while giving non-U.S. United Methodists the ability to change what did not work in their settings. Giving the U.S. church the ability to adapt was unnecessary.
But things have changed and are changing. The U.S. percentage of the General Conference is at its lowest point ever. As Methodism in the U.S. continues to decline dramatically and Methodism in Africa continues to grow significantly, within eight to twelve years, U.S. delegates could be in the minority.
On top of that, the two-thirds of U.S. delegates that are centrists or progressives are being outvoted by the one-third of U.S. delegates that are traditionalists, along with traditionalists in Africa, Eurasia, and the Philippines. If the U.S. voted separately from the rest of the church, the centrists and progressives would overwhelmingly control the direction of the church in the U.S. But the voices of delegates outside the U.S., along with U.S. traditionalists, are setting the agenda for the global church. U.S. centrists and progressives disagree with that traditionalist agenda and can use regionalization to resist it.
Regionalization’s Impact on Marriage and Ordination
If the U.S. church is given the power to adapt the Discipline that the central conferences currently have, and if that power is expanded to cover more parts of the Discipline (as the Christmas Covenant envisions), the situation would change dramatically. The global definition of marriage as between one man and one woman could be changed to allow for same-sex marriage in the U.S. church. The global requirement that all clergy should be celibate in singleness or faithful in a heterosexual marriage could be changed to delete the word “heterosexual,” or the requirement for celibacy and faithfulness could be struck out altogether in the U.S. (as at least one petition to the 2020 General Conference proposes). The provision barring clergy from performing same-sex weddings could be removed in the U.S. The chargeable offenses holding clergy accountable on these matters could be scrapped in the U.S.
While some proponents of regionalization may see it primarily as a way to free General Conference from having to deal with matters strictly pertaining to the U.S., it would also allow the U.S. church to shift in a much more progressive direction. This progressive shift would affect not only the U.S. church’s teachings and standards on marriage and ordination; it would also affect how the church’s doctrinal standards are interpreted and what social or political statements the U.S. church would make on matters of public interest. One could expect the U.S. church to espouse more progressive politics than it currently does.
Regionalization vs. Separation
Traditionalists would not object to this kind of regionalization for the U.S. church after separation occurs. After all, many traditionalists would not remain in the UM Church after separation and would therefore have no standing to determine how the UM Church is governed after separation. In fact, the Protocol for Separation envisions “The Council of Bishops will call the first session of the General Conference of the post-separation United Methodist Church to organize itself and, if such legislation has not been passed, consider matters pertaining to the Regional Conference plan.”
However, traditionalists would strenuously object to regionalization as a substitute for separation.
The key point to remember is that our church’s conflict is not geographical, and a geographical solution does not resolve the conflict. That was the fatal flaw of the One Church Plan rejected by the 2019 General Conference.
There are traditionalist congregations and clergy in every annual conference in the U.S. and Western Europe, which regions might be expected to go progressive. There are progressive congregations and clergy in the Philippines and parts of Africa, which might be expected to go traditional. Allowing regionalization without a fair and practical exit path for congregations would simply exacerbate the conflict within these regions.
Creating the U.S. as a separate region of the church without allowing for separation would simply trap traditionalists in a centrist/progressive church, with no real recourse to withdraw, other than to leave behind buildings and assets. (The current exit path adopted by the 2019 General Conference is too expensive for most congregations, requiring seven to twelve years’ worth of apportionments as the fee to keep their buildings.) Under such a scenario, traditionalists are afraid that they would eventually be forced out of the church by the centrist/progressive conference leadership, so that the conference could keep the congregation’s building and assets to support the conference’s dwindling finances.
Some proponents of regionalization maintain that, while the U.S. church would change its stance on marriage and ordination, it would continue to welcome traditionalists to remain in the church. However, such hospitality could not be guaranteed. The Episcopal Church in the U.S. started out welcoming traditionalists to remain in that church after it changed its teachings, but now it appears that all parts of the church are expected to allow same-sex marriage and ordination of practicing LGBT persons, and its last traditionalist bishop has just resigned. If affirming same-sex relationships is truly a justice issue, which is how most centrists and progressives see it, they could not allow what they view as “discrimination” to continue indefinitely. Sooner or later, they would have to require same-sex marriage and ordination in all parts of the U.S. church.
Even now, given the way the election of jurisdictional delegates took place in 2019, there is no jurisdiction in the U.S. that is likely to elect a traditionalist bishop in the foreseeable future. Many progressive annual conferences refuse to ordain traditionalists as clergy. The track record of hospitality to traditionalists in progressive areas is not reassuring.
The regionalization plans, whether it is the Christmas Covenant or the Connectional Table Plan, should not be seen as a substitute for separation. Amicable separation is the only pathway that would truly end the church’s conflict and allow freedom of conscience on the part of all clergy and congregations, whether centrist, progressive, or traditionalist. General Conference delegates should defeat any attempt to enact regionalization without also enacting the Protocol for Separation.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Mar 5, 2021 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
By Thomas Lambrecht –
Sometimes in life, there is no substitute for a fresh start. That is what the newly announced Global Methodist Church (GMC) offers.
Texas experienced near-record freezing temperatures a couple weeks ago. As a native of Wisconsin, I’m used to the cold, but the plants in our yard were not chosen according to their ability to survive freezing temperatures. Most of them look pretty bedraggled right now. I spent last weekend clearing out and discarding all the dead leaves, stems, and plants so they have room to grow back from their roots. It would do no good to leave all that dead plant material on the ground, since those plants will not reenergize the existing leaves and stems. They will only survive by growing again from the roots.
That is how many traditionalists perceive The United Methodist Church. Parts of the church have lost their ability to function the way they were intended. Rather than fighting to reenergize those dead leaves and stems, it will be more fruitful to clear away the debris and start fresh, allowing Methodism to grow up once again from its historic roots.
The newly announced Global Methodist Church represents an effort to reconstitute Methodism in a new way for the 21st century, while drawing upon our biblical and Wesleyan roots. This project reminds me of the words of Jesus to the church in Sardis: “I know your deeds; you have a reputation of being alive, but you are dead. Wake up! Strengthen what remains and is about to die” (Revelation 3:1-2). The GMC is an attempt to strengthen what remains and reconstruct what is missing from original Methodism in a way that works for this new century.
A Fresh Theological Identity
The greatest error the founders of United Methodism made in 1968 was to create a theological identity around doctrinal pluralism. The concept was that the church could accommodate a variety of theological perspectives and belief systems. Even now, there are some clergy who do not believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus, the Virgin Birth, the validity of miracles, or the necessity of Christ’s death on the cross for our sins (to name a few).
As a result, United Methodism has no clear theological identity. When one walks into a United Methodist local church, one never knows what theology will be preached from the pulpit that Sunday.
The Global Methodist Church gives us a chance to start fresh with a consistent theological identity. It will be based on the ancient creeds and the Articles of Religion and Confession of Faith. All GMC clergy and congregations will be expected to affirm and teach these doctrines without their fingers crossed behind their backs and without “redefining” what the creeds mean. While there will be room for theological exploration and diversity of perspective on lesser matters, there will be no dispute over the main points of our doctrinal understanding.
Fresh Accountability
The situation that has precipitated the crisis in United Methodism is the lack of accountability. There is currently no way to hold bishops accountable to enforce the provisions and requirements of the Book of Discipline. They can choose not to do so, and many U.S. bishops have chosen not to hold clergy and annual conferences accountable to the requirements regarding same-sex weddings and the ordination of self-avowed practicing gay and lesbian persons as ministers. This results in clergy who are also unaccountable, choosing which parts of the Discipline to honor and which parts to ignore. The UM Church has become, in some sense, ungovernable. Restoring accountability would be a long, painful process with an uncertain prognosis of success.
The Global Methodist Church offers an opportunity to reestablish uniform accountability for bishops and clergy. All will be held to the same global standards. Uniform accountability processes will ensure that bishops in particular abide by the requirements of the new church’s Book of Doctrines and Discipline. That accountability is possible because all will agree to abide by those requirements from the beginning.
But accountability is not just for bishops and clergy. The essence of Wesleyanism is accountable discipleship for all believers. The small group meetings called classes and bands were an essential part of Methodism for at least its first 100 years. And it was the fading vitality of such small groups that led to the cooling of Methodist fervor in its second 100 years.
The GMC hopes to restore small-group discipleship as an essential part of church membership. We all need accountability in our daily transformation toward greater Christlikeness. We were not meant to live the Christian life as “holy solitaries” (in Wesley’s words). Rather, we are called to live in Christian community, strengthening and encouraging one another in our walk with the Lord. We need to know and be known by a small group of brothers or sisters, comrades in arms, who are fighting the spiritual battle of holiness with us.
A Fresh Approach to Ministry
In United Methodism, the denominational hierarchy and general boards and agencies have become disconnected from the local church. Like independent fiefdoms, each has its own identity and mission that are only loosely accountable to the general church. Sometimes, these agencies have constituted their own power center within the church that serves mainly to perpetuate its institutional existence, rather than providing vital services to local churches and annual conferences.
The Global Methodist Church aims to flip this picture upside down, where the hierarchy becomes the “lowerarchy.” The role of bishops, superintendents (to be called presiding elders), staff, and boards and agencies is to serve the local church and facilitate the ministry of the local church. Their effectiveness will be judged, not on power or prestige, but on how well they are able to serve the local church.
Structurally, the emphasis will be on flexibility and lean organization. Essential functions will be mandated, but how those functions are carried out will be up to each local church and each annual conference. Local churches, conferences, and the general church will be encouraged to form only those committees and agencies that are essential, rather than proliferating a bureaucracy that becomes a self-promoting entity.
General church agencies will strive for a unity of mission and cooperation in service to the church. They will be accountable to a Connectional Council that will ensure agencies do not become independent silos or get off-mission. Agencies will share staff, and a connectional operating officer will be responsible to keep agencies and staff centered on their cooperative mission to serve the larger church.
A Fresh Approach to Ordained Ministry
The United Methodist Church has struggled for decades to find a unified and coherent understanding of ordained ministry. Its increasing reliance on licensed local pastors in lieu of ordained clergy has established a “class” system that separates one type of clergy from another, resulting in unfair treatment of those perceived to be in a different “class.” Its long process leading to ordination over six to twelve years discourages many from pursuing that goal and no longer fits a global church with a variety of cultural, educational, and financial circumstances.
The Global Methodist Church proposes restoring a nested understanding of ordination. All laity are called to ministry in the world and in the church. Deacons are called out of the laity to a representative ministry of service and word to lead the church in ministry to the world. Elders are called out of the order of deacons to a ministry of service, word, sacrament, and order to lead the church in ministry to the world. Some will remain permanent deacons, but all elders will be deacons first. (Further in-depth explanation of this understanding is available in three articles HERE, HERE, and HERE.)
Ordination as a deacon will be available after as little as one year of candidacy. There will no longer be licensed local pastors serving churches. Instead, they will be ordained as deacons, while they continue their education toward ordination as elders. The goal is to have an ordained deacon or elder serving as the pastor of nearly every local church. Deacons and elders will have sacramental authority, deacons in their ministry setting and elders in all settings.
A variety of educational routes will be available for those seeking ordination as elders, including the traditional Master of Divinity, Course of Study, or Bachelor or Master of Arts in Ministry. Pastoral training will emphasize practical experience in ministry during training and provide for continued supervision in ministry following the completion of education.
Educational loans will be available to certified candidates for ministry, with such loans being forgivable in exchange for five years of service in the church. The goal is to release all clergy from educational debt.
Any separation of a denomination is tragic. I wish it had not come to this. However, it seems we have two main tasks in light of the evident need for separation:
- To make separation as fair and as amicable as possible, not using this as a final opportunity to exact one more pound of flesh from our opponents. We have a chance to demonstrate to the world that, if we cannot live together, at least we can separate in a way that exhibits the fruit of the Holy Spirit and fulfills Jesus’ wish that we be peacemakers.
- To use this separation as an opportunity for a fresh start, not only for the new Global Methodist Church, but also for the continuing United Methodist Church. Let’s not waste this crisis by trying to hang on to the status quo. Rather, we can think creatively and innovatively about how to best position our churches for the task of ministry ahead in this 21st
A fresh start can help us all. After all, Christianity is the faith of the fresh start, found for each one of us as we become one with Jesus Christ in his resurrection to new life.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Mar 1, 2021 | In the News, WCA
By Walter Fenton –
The Transitional Leadership Council, a 17 member team of theologically conservative Methodists, has released information on the Global Methodist Church.
The council said the new church will officially come into existence when a United Methodist General Conference adopts the implementing legislation for the Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace through Separation. Alternatively, if it becomes apparent that the leading bishops, centrists, and progressives who covenanted to support the Protocol no longer do so, then the council will consider bringing the new church into existence without delay. Local United Methodist churches, annual conferences, and central conferences will then be able to join the new denomination.
“The primary mission of the Global Methodist Church will be to make disciples of Jesus Christ who worship passionately, love extravagantly, and witness boldly,” said the Rev. Keith Boyette, who serves as chairman of the Transitional Leadership Council. “Over the past year the council members, and hundreds of people who have informed their work, have faithfully and thoughtfully arrived at this point. They are happy to share with others a wealth of information about a church they believe will be steeped in the life giving confessions of the Christian faith.”
With the announcement of the new church the council authorized the release of a comprehensive and detailed website. It includes the new church’s mission statement, vision, information about its name and logo, a frequently asked questions section, and downloadable versions of the church’s Transitional Book of Doctrines and Discipline in English, French, Korean, Portuguese, and Spanish. The website clearly notes that “the Global Methodist Church is in formation” and will officially launch when the Protocol is approved, or if it becomes apparent that an amicable and orderly separation no longer has the support of a broad coalition of leading bishops, centrists, progressives, and traditionalists. In the case of the latter, the Transitional Leadership Council will consider bringing the new church into existence without delay.
Philippe Adjobi.
“It was a great honor to participate in such exhilarating work,” said the Rev. Philippe Adjobi, a member of the Transitional Leadership Council, a district superintendent in the Cote d’Ivoire Annual Conference and a General Conference delegate. “I believe the Global Methodist Church will fulfill the expectations and aspirations of local churches throughout Africa. They will appreciate focusing on what is essential: testifying to Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.”
Adjobi and the names of the other 16 members of the council are listed on the Global Methodist Church’s website. They are theologically conservative women and men who come from Africa, Eurasia, the Philippines, and the United States. The list includes laity, clergy and bishops who have been integrally involved in the UM Church for years, and who believe an amicable and orderly separation is the best way forward for a denomination deeply divided and beset by significant challenges.
Theologically conservative United Methodists have made no secret of their efforts to form a new church. In late 2018, the Wesleyan Covenant Association created a Next Steps Working Group to begin drafting its own “Book of Doctrines and Discipline” outlining essential theological confessions and governing structures for a new church’s consideration. It did so in light of the special called 2019 General Conference, where delegates once again addressed issues that have deeply divided the UM Church for decades. The special conference was called to hopefully resolve differences, but many believed it could just as easily reveal the necessity of separation.
The special General Conference proved to be as contentious and divisive as many people anticipated when a Traditional Plan reaffirming the UM Church’s sexual ethics, teachings on marriage, and ordination standards was approved. Progressive and centrist United Methodists in the U.S. denounced the General Conference’s actions and resolved to defy the global body vested with the sole power to speak authoritatively for the UM Church.
Within weeks, small groups of centrist, progressive, and traditionalist UM Church leaders, quietly and often haltingly began having conversations about plans for dividing the denomination. A group convened by the late Bishop John Yambasu of Sierre Leone and guided by the world renown mediator Kenneth Feinberg hammered out the Protocol and its implementing legislation. The 16 member team included leading UM bishops and representatives from the major advocacy groups representing centrists, progressives, and conservatives.
The Protocol team released its plan in early January 2020 and it quickly gained the sometimes hopeful and sometimes grudging support of United Methodists around the world. It appeared headed for likely passage at the denomination’s May 2020 General Conference.
In light of the Protocol a group of theologically conservative UM Church leaders met in Atlanta, Georgia, the first week of March 2020. The group included several traditionalist bishops, evangelical advocacy group leaders, and other clergy and laity who identified as theologically conservative. Over the course of three days the leaders agreed to an expansive vision for a new Methodist church, and then nominated the members of the Transitional Leadership Council, assigning them the task of forming the new church.
Dr. Bob Hayes.
“I am convinced the Global Methodist Church will be a vibrant, vital expression of Methodism in terms of its teachings and ethics,” said Dr. Bob Hayes, a Transitional Leadership Council member and Bishop in Residence at The Woodlands United Methodist Church in The Woodlands, Texas. “As a fourth generation Methodist I am excited by a fresh wind of the Holy Spirit where I see God doing a new thing! God is creating a church rooted in Scripture and the love of Jesus, and he is calling us to participate with him. We’re not there just yet, but given our vision, our hope, and our perseverance, I’m confident we’ll get there!”
At the time of the Transitional Leadership Council’s formation, no one knew the Covid-19 pandemic would result in the postponement of the UM Church’s 2020 General Conference. Like many other UM Church leaders, the traditionalists who met in Atlanta anticipated the passage of the Protocol in May of last year and intended for the Transitional Leadership Council to form the new church and oversee it until it could hold a convening General Conference.
Despite the postponement of an in-person General Conference, the Transitional Leadership Council has been meeting almost weekly since March 2020. As is evident in its Transitional Book of Doctrines and Discipline, the council has approved the Global Methodist Church’s core confessions of faith, hammered out a transitional governing structure, and adopted the new church’s name and logo. The council has emphasized fidelity to the historic teaching of the Christian faith, and a desire to be a truly global church.
Rev. Kevin Ryoo.
“I believe a good number of ethnic congregations will want to align with the Global Methodist Church,” said the Rev. Kevin Ryoo, a council member and an elder in the Dakotas Annual Conference. “They long for a church which honors the Bible, stays within the traditional mission of Methodism, and keeps local church ministry as a first priority. I know Korean Methodist congregations have a strong passion for evangelism and mission.”
A number of Korean UM pastors reached out to the Wesleyan Covenant Association not long after the association’s formation and have offered their insights and ideas for what a new theologically conservative church might look like.
Boyette, who is the president of the Wesleyan Covenant Association, acknowledged that while the association has played a role in preparing for the new church, many other traditionalist leaders have been critical in the formation of the Global Methodist Church.
Leah Hidde Gregory.
“Traditionalists do not march in lock-step,” said the Rev. Dr. Leah Hidde Gregory, a Transitional Leadership Council member and a district superintendent in the Central Texas Annual Conference. “Some traditionalists have been wary of the WCA, thinking it was moving too fast and others believing it was moving too slow. It took a few meetings before I realized there were only three people from the WCA leadership on our council. It became obvious to me that the group who nominated us wanted to make sure all people who regard themselves as traditionalist, orthodox, conservative, or evangelical were represented on the Transitional Leadership Council.”
Hidde Gregory also noted the misinformation that has swirled around the work of forming a new traditionalist church. “It’s unfortunate that some people have falsely claimed we are opposed to the full inclusion of women as clergy in a new church; nothing could be further from the truth. We make very clear the new church will be fully open to women, and to all ethnicities and races.”
In the “Frequently Asked Questions” section of its website the new church states, “Women, like men, will be called to serve in the Global Methodist Church and will be entitled to serve at all levels.” The section also says, “As a truly global church the denomination will be ethnically and racially diverse and will insist on the equal treatment of all the church’s members.”
Council members believe that if the Protocol’s implementing legislation is adopted, thousands of local churches and clergy in Africa, Eurasia, the Philippines, and the U.S. will want to join the Global Methodist Church. It is widely recognized that clergy and laity in Africa, Eastern Europe and Russia, and in parts of the Philippines are more theologically conservative than their counterparts in the U.S. Although, even in the U.S., a significant percentage of laity identify as theologically conservative, and are part of small, midsize, and large traditionalist local churches.
Cara Nicklas.
“I believe Methodism is on the cusp of another Great Awakening,” said Transitional Leadership Council member Cara Nicklas, an attorney and General Conference delegate from the Oklahoma Annual Conference. “The Global Methodist Church is the vehicle by which that will happen because we value a connectional, global church with doctrine and discipline that is not guided by our U.S. culture but is simply focused on bringing people into a deep and intimate relationship with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”
The Transitional Leadership Council will continue to prepare for the official launch of the Global Methodist Church. It meets on almost a weekly basis and regularly receives extensive reports from task force groups dealing with everything from the necessity of a local church’s board of trustees to theological statements regarding the sacraments of baptism and holy communion.
“True to our roots, we’re a patient and methodical people,” said Boyette. “We want to do our very best to help theologically conservative local churches, laity and pastors navigate the transitional period as smoothly as possible. And then we look forward to the Global Methodist Church’s convening General Conference where we hope the duly elected delegates will find what we have done to be helpful. It will be their great task and responsibility to discern God’s will and so help all its local churches and people live fully into the body of Christ.”
To learn more about the Global Methodist Church, click HERE.
The Rev. Walter Fenton is Vice President for Strategic Engagement for the Wesleyan Covenant Association and is an elder in the Greater New Jersey Annual Conference.
by Steve | Mar 1, 2021 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
By Thomas Lambrecht –
On Thursday, the Commission on the General Conference announced that the 2020 General Conference, postponed once until August 29, 2021, has now been postponed again until August 29, 2022. At the same time, the Council of Bishops announced it is calling a special session of the General Conference to meet virtually on May 8, 2021, to address technical issues that would allow the church to continue operating until the full General Conference can meet.
The Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace through Separation is not currently on the agenda for the special virtual General Conference.
No Regular General Conference
The Commission made the expected decision that an in-person General Conference could not take place in 2021, due to the travel restrictions in place now and expected to remain in place for the foreseeable future. Travel by delegates from outside the U.S. to attend General Conference will likely still be impossible throughout 2021. Those delegates make up 40 percent of the General Conference, and it would be inappropriate to meet without them.
A Technology Study Team met during January to consider the possibility of a virtual General Conference. After extensive research and conversations with representatives of the church outside the U.S., the team concluded that a virtual General Conference, even with a limited agenda, would not be possible. Some of the reasons for this conclusion are:
- The technology for linking different parts of the world would only accommodate six to ten sites, meaning that delegates would need to gather in central locations in groups of 50 to 100. Due to travel restrictions, both inside and outside the U.S., such travel appears unlikely or impossible.
- Some of the sites for gathering outside the U.S. do not have reliable electricity and Internet service, meaning that particular sites might not be available at the time the General Conference is supposed to meet during the day, and their ability to interact could be severely compromised. Travel restrictions limit the ability of technical teams from the U.S. to travel to the sites to set up the required technology. It would not be ethical for the General Conference to meet if not all delegates have equal ability to contribute their voice and participate in holy conferencing.
- In the wake of problems at the 2019 General Conference with improper voting, there needs to be a way to assure the identity of delegates and reserve delegates in order to assure the integrity of the process. This can only be effectively assured by the presence of trained staff and volunteers from the Commission. Travel restrictions would inhibit the ability of staff and volunteers to attend the sites outside the U.S.
- Concerns have been expressed about undue influence being exerted on delegates to vote certain ways. The only way to mitigate against that is for neutral observers to be present, which is again inhibited by the travel restrictions.
As one who promoted the viability of a virtual General Conference, reading the report of the Technology Study Team convinced me that it is not feasible with current technology during a pandemic. This decision is disappointing, and the situation is frustrating, but I believe it was the right call.
The Special Session
The Council of Bishops proposes that the special session gather on May 8 for an extremely limited agenda. The first task would be to secure a quorum in order for the special session to take action. In light of the above considerations, it is unlikely that more than a scattered few delegates from Africa or the Philippines could attend. It must be acknowledged that, despite the high value on universal participation by all delegates, this special session will mainly include U.S. and European delegates who have access to Internet technology. But this situation is unavoidable in trying to get some of the church’s administrative processes unstuck.
With the knowledge that many delegates could not participate in a deliberative General Conference, the Council of Bishops has limited the proposed agenda to twelve administrative items that it considers non-controversial. These agenda items provide for:
- Correcting the accountability process in response to a Judicial Council ruling invalidating the entire administrative process for dealing with ineffective clergy
- Allowing the General Conference and central conferences in extraordinary circumstances to be held electronically (Note that jurisdictional conferences are not given the same explicit ability to meet electronically, although the bishops’ press release envisions a virtual jurisdictional conference this summer to act on the retirement of bishops and determine new episcopal areas.)
- Allowing the central conferences to meet during the last half of 2021 to determine whether or not to elect bishops this quadrennium to replace those who are retiring (It is unclear whether actual elections would take place then or at an in-person central conference meeting held following the 2022 General Conference. As of now, it appears that the five additional bishops for Africa promised in 2016 are off the table until at least 2022.)
- Providing that bishops who reach age 72 are automatically retired and allowing younger bishops to retire at their request, rather than having to wait until a jurisdictional or central conference meets to vote on their retirement
- Providing that, if the General Conference cannot meet as scheduled, the budget for the previous quadrennium will be extended until such meeting can occur
- Allowing annual conferences to elect quadrennial officers if the General Conference cannot meet as scheduled
The virtual General Conference will also vote to allow the voting on the above items to be done by paper ballots that would be compiled by mail and the results announced on July 13, 2021. The paper ballots would not allow any amendments to the above legislation. Delegates would simply vote yes or no. Although not all delegates could participate in the virtual General Conference, all 862 delegates could cast paper ballots on the proposed legislation.
What about the Protocol?
The agenda for the virtual special session of General Conference does not include the Protocol to allow for separation in the UM Church. Some have said that such a decision is too important to be made when we are not together in the same room. Further, the items on the special session agenda could not be amended, and some have said they want to make amendments to the Protocol.
However, the decision about separation requires urgent resolution. Many of the other decisions, such as the budget and the number of bishops to elect, depend upon how many churches and annual conferences will remain in The United Methodist Church after separation. It would be better to make the decision regarding separation before needing to make all these other decisions.
It is in no one’s best interest to prolong this decision. Deciding now would enable The UM Church and the new traditionalist denomination to begin moving ahead in ministry as we come out of the pandemic. Many are ready to act, and deciding now would open the door for churches that are ready to go in a new direction. The Protocol has been discussed publicly for over a year, so the delegates are well aware of what it contains.
It is in the best interest of centrists and progressives that General Conference make a decision now regarding the Protocol. Once traditionalists start moving to a new denomination, it would allow centrists and progressives free rein to change the church’s position on marriage and sexual ethics, as well as enact new structures of regionalization at the 2022 General Conference. If the decision on separation is postponed to 2022, it is likely that these other changes will have to wait until 2024.
The need to offer amendments to the Protocol is not essential. The mediation team negotiated the major terms of the Protocol based on compromise and give-and-take. Changing any of those major terms could jeopardize the carefully balanced agreement and throw the adoption of the Protocol into question. It would be better to adopt the Protocol as negotiated, with the implementation dates extended by one year, which would be possible under the plan of the special virtual session.
The Council of Bishops could amend the call for the special session to include the Protocol, but they are unlikely to do so. By a two-thirds vote, the delegates could add the Protocol to the agenda of items to be dealt with by the special session. Coming weeks will show if this is a viable option.
Hope for the Future
Meanwhile, we look to the Protocol mediation team to provide leadership in continuing its support and promotion of the Protocol. The Reconciling Ministries Network and the Western Jurisdiction and its progressive bishops have recently reiterated their support for the Protocol, as has the Atlanta group of traditionalists. With support across the spectrum, including from bishops, the Protocol can move forward as a positive way to amicably resolve the decades-long conflict in the UM Church.
Whether the decision is made in May or next year, we believe an amicable separation will release the church to be what its members determine. Freed from conflict, both groups could wholeheartedly pursue ministry according to their mission and identity. They could focus their energy on mission, and no longer be distracted by conflict.
Over the past year, we have been learning to endure and persevere. Yes, it is tiring, hard work. It is discouraging at times to see the goal line shift farther into the future, whether we are thinking about the pandemic or the future of the church. The promise remains that God is with us and will never leave or forsake us.
Be patient, then, brothers and sisters, until the Lord’s coming. See how the farmer waits to see the land yield its valuable crop, patiently waiting for the autumn and spring rains. You too, be patient and stand firm, because the Lord’s coming is near (James 5:7-8).
Patient endurance is our calling in this moment. As we see what God unfolds in our lives and the life of our church, we put our faith and trust in him. With Jeremiah, we are confident that God has “plans to prosper [us] and not to harm [us], plans to give [us] hope and a future” (Jeremiah 29:11). We can stand firm on that promise and the Lord’s matchless presence at all times. “Do not be afraid. Stand firm, and you will see the deliverance the Lord will bring you today” (Exodus 14:13).
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
