by Steve | Dec 4, 2017 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
By Thomas Lambrecht-
It has been alarming to read and hear the steady drumbeat of new allegations of sexual harassment and inappropriate behavior by leaders and other powerful men in our country. A small ripple has become a tidal wave of reports, swamping even the most powerful who have withstood a winked-at reputation for decades.
What is new at this time is the spotlight being put on women’s stories of abusive behavior. It is one thing to read the statistic that more than 40 percent of American women report having experienced sexual harassment. It is another thing to hear the stories of some of the behavior that women have had to endure.
As a married father of three daughters, these stories are beyond disgusting. As a Christian, they are morally reprehensible. I find it difficult to conceive how some men could act this way, although I know in my head that such behavior has existed since the dawn of time.
We can and should make sure that laws and policies protect women and men from abusive behavior. We can and should provide clear avenues for victims to find redress for the abuses committed against them. But laws alone cannot solve a problem of the human heart. Only Christ can.
God is in the transformation business. He wants to transform our lives into the likeness of Jesus Christ. And he wants to transform our culture through the leavening power of the Holy Spirit expressed in the lives of believers who permeate society like yeast in dough. That transformation is an inner change wrought by the Holy Spirit, as we cooperate and live into the change he is working in us.
There are several images in Scripture that can help us welcome God’s transformation into this area of our lives.
One image has to do with treating women with respect. The Apostle Peter says some pretty revolutionary things in I Peter 3:7, when he commands husbands to “be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect.” Although specifically addressed to husbands and wives, the points apply to all male-female relationships. Peter wants us to act with consideration and respect. None of the stories of sexual harassment that I have read betray any sense of the perpetrator acting with consideration or respect.
Women are given a status equal to men by the use of the terms “partner” and “heirs with you of the gracious gift of life.” In God’s eyes, women and men are of equal value and worth. We can demonstrate that with numerous examples from the way that Jesus treated women. As such, women are entitled to consideration and respect. Women are not things to be used to satisfy men’s desires, but equally powerful human beings with equal stature and equal moral agency.
In the above cited passage, Peter uses the term “weaker partner” to describe wives. Of course, this is not the kind of phrase one uses in modern day public discourse, but it was a common understanding during biblical days. Throughout history, all kinds of wrong-headed applications have been made from this passage. In fact, scientists have extended great efforts to prove that women are stronger than men in many ways (albeit perhaps not in terms of brute strength). But I think that misses the point.
In Peter’s time, women were in need of protection. Culturally and economically, women were for the most part unable to function as independent people. It was the man’s role to care for and protect women. This role fell naturally to the father and then to the husband, but it was also assumed by the church in the case of widows. I have become much more aware how dangerous it might be to be a woman in our society, based on how pervasive and widespread are the instances of sexual harassment and even rape.
Women today still need our protection. They do not need the stifling kind of controlling “protection” by a male authority figure. They need all of us to watch out for each other, offering strength and encouragement and help in time of need. In short, they need consideration and respect. And in the words of that new ubiquitous saying, “If you see something, say something.” We need to speak up for each other and call out behavior that is inappropriate.
These concepts of equal status and worth and the need for consideration and respect for women in particular were revolutionary in Bible times. Women were not generally regarded in this way. Over time, the Christian gospel changed society, but the transformation has not been complete. There is still work to do.
Another image from Scripture is found in the Golden Rule, to treat others in the way that we would like to be treated. We have to take the time and effort to imagine what it would be like to be in the shoes of the other person and treat them in a way that we would want to be treated. I cannot believe that any of the perpetrators would want to be treated in the way they are treating their victims.
I realize that the predominant motif of sexual harassment or abuse is an issue of power, with a more powerful person (in the world’s eyes) taking advantage of a less powerful one. But I cannot help but wonder if some of the seeming epidemic of sexual abuse is the result of our society having lost a healthy understanding of the purpose of sex. Through the widespread use of birth control, we have fairly effectively separated sex from procreation (which can be a very good thing, but it can also have negative consequences). And in more recent years, changing mores have separated sex from marriage. It is no longer discouraged to live together without being married, and in many instances it is assumed that people should do that. In the attitudes of many, sex has become a recreational activity between consenting adults on par with going to see a great movie or going for a bike ride.
This trivialization of sex has deprived it of the sacred mystery that God intended it to have, serving as part of the glue to hold a lifetime relationship together and symbolizing the uniting of two persons into one intimate relationship. It is no coincidence that the Old Testament euphemism for sexual relations was “to know” a person. Sex is meant to point to the most intimate and knowing of human relationships, and to point toward the ultimate knowing relationship between a person and God. Paul looks forward to a time when “I shall know fully, even as I am fully known” (I Corinthians 13:12). Yet today it is considered normal to hop into bed with a person after the first or second date, when you hardly know the other person’s name!
Part of the antidote to sexual harassment and abuse is to recover God’s purpose and understanding behind sex. When we come to terms with the deep and sacred meaning God intended for a sexual relationship, we will treat sexuality with the seriousness and deference that it deserves.
The bottom line is that this whole area of sexual harassment and abuse is an area where Christians should be leading in a counter-cultural direction, yes in our teaching, but supremely by the way we live and treat others. Where we have failed to live up to God’s ideal, it is disappointing, and we must resolve to live in ongoing repentance and transformation. The good news is that forgiveness and transformation is available to even the most sin-hardened among us. All we need to do is turn and ask.
Although painful in the process, God’s healing is available to victims of sexual harassment and abuse, as well. The Church is positioned to offer the affirmation of women’s worth and equality, as well as the ministry of the Holy Spirit in bringing restoration and healing to those who have suffered. Part of our responsibility is to make it safe to talk about experiences of abuse in a church context in order to open the door to that healing and affirmation. In the Church, we tend to be afraid to talk about sex and power. By the grace of God, we need to overcome that fear.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Nov 28, 2017 | In the News, Uncategorized
Today is #GivingTuesday. This is a great reminder that we find our most fulfillment in giving to others. Giving is a way to say “Thank you” to the God who gives us all things.
We invite you to remember Good News with a gift today. Click HERE.
For 50 years, Good News Magazine has been the voice from the pews. Independently-supported, Good News has endeavored to be a reliable source for denominational news and opinion from a decidedly evangelical and traditionalist viewpoint. We ask that you continue to help us be a ministry with warm-hearted advocacy and reliable journalism.
We depend upon your support to help lead United Methodists to a faithful future. We are working hard to advocate for scriptural faithfulness in The United Methodist Church. The next four years will be critical for the next era of our denomination.
We very much appreciate your partnership with us in this vital mission. Your investment in the work of Good News will pay dividends for eternity.
Please pray that God would grant us wisdom to navigate in these vital days ahead. Give today as the Lord leads. Thank you for your prayerful consideration and support for Good News!
–Good News
by Steve | Nov 24, 2017 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
By Thomas Lambrecht-
As we gather to celebrate Thanksgiving with our families and friends, we are a nation that has experienced much suffering and tragedy within the last few months. Many families will gather around a makeshift table in a home that is being rebuilt after flooding and hurricane damage. Others will be celebrating Thanksgiving in a temporary shelter because they lost their home in a fire. Still other families will huddle around a dining room table without a loved one who was killed in one of the tragic shootings experienced in our nation.
The United States of America is actively recovering from both natural and human-made disasters. We are also beset by political conflicts that threaten to tear our country apart. At the same time, our United Methodist Church is dealing with schism and theological divisions that jeopardize the future of the denomination.
We might be tempted to feel like not giving thanks, due to the dire circumstances that many among us are experiencing. But it is just at such times that we need to remember God’s mercy and blessing and acknowledge him as the Source of all good gifts.
It was President Abraham Lincoln who officially made Thanksgiving a national holiday – enacting what President George Washington first proposed as an official national celebratory “day of public thanksgiving and prayer.” For Lincoln, the first Thanksgiving holiday was declared in 1863 after a major Union victory at Gettysburg in the midst of the bloody and bitter Civil War that would not end until two years later.
“The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies,” Lincoln said. “To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God … No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.”
President Lincoln continued: “I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States … to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to his tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquility and Union.”
It is highly appropriate, as Lincoln did, to use this time of Thanksgiving to appeal to God for the healing of our nation, for comfort and healing for the sufferers of these disasters, for the restoration of those damaged by tragedy, and for the repentance and healing of our church. We pray for “the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquility and Union,” both in our country and in our church.
This is also an appropriate time to be ever mindful of the proud heritage and subsequent plight of our Native American brothers and sisters who too frequently end up becoming mere caricature figures in our elementary school Thanksgiving plays. While we may not always know the best way to rectify national mistakes of the past, the first step for peace for our future is acknowledging that we are all in need of the mercy and forgiveness of the Almighty.
Our staff at Good News is especially grateful for you, our supporters and constituents. You have kept us in prayer. You have encouraged us with your letters and emails. You have made our work possible by your financial gifts. As we head toward Giving Tuesday next week, we invite you to give a special Thanksgiving gift to Good News in honor of the blessings the Lord has poured out in your life. (To make a gift, you may click here or utilize the letter you recently received in the mail.) You make it possible for us to stand strong for the proclamation of the Father’s sacrificial love in Christ, his transformative mercy and grace toward all people, and his divine revelation through the words of Scripture, leading United Methodists to a faithful future. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts.
Make sure you set aside time this weekend to remember the source of all blessing and to pray for the healing of our land. May you and your family have a blessed Thanksgiving!
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Nov 22, 2017 | In the News
Cover art of Time magazine in 1947.
By Philip Tallon
On November 22, 1963, the world’s foremost Christian apologist died of kidney failure. Despite his literary fame, in the following week’s newspapers, his death was overshadowed by the assassination of John F. Kennedy, and received little notice. The New York Times made up for the oversight and published an obituary three days later, on November 25, chronicling the main features of Lewis’s life and work. (Though they did misspell Narnia as “Narvia.”)
Today, however, C. S. Lewis is still the world’s foremost apologist, and his literary fame eclipses the fame of many U.S. Presidents. Lewis’ Mere Christianity is currently the top-selling work of apologetics on Amazon.com. Christianity Today recently dubbed it the “Book of the Century.”
Lewis’ prominence as a fiction writer is even more secure than his fame as an apologist. His Christian fantasy series, The Chronicles of Narnia, has sold over a hundred million copies. Over the last 10 years, the first three books in the Narnia series were adapted by Hollywood and grossed over a billion dollars. The only other fantasy author who tops Lewis’ fame is his long-time friend and fellow Oxonian, J. R. R. Tolkien.
For a man who once described himself as a “dinosaur,” Lewis’ legacy shows no sign of going extinct. For those who have read almost anything by Lewis, his staying power isn’t surprising. His prose is chatty and charming. He manages to be crystal clear whether he’s discoursing on hell or 16th century English literature.
Take, for example, Lewis’ chapter from Mere Christianity on the Trinity – a topic that sends many preachers into stammers or silence. In a brisk five pages, Lewis describes Augustine’s theology of the Trinity in layman’s language and offers several concrete and helpful analogies that most readers can easily visualize.
“An ordinary simple Christian kneels down to say his prayers. He is trying to get into touch with God. But if he is a Christian he knows that what is prompting him to pray is also God: God, so to speak, inside him. But he also knows that all his real knowledge of God comes through Christ, the Man who was God — that Christ is standing beside him, helping him to pray, praying for him,” Lewis wrote. “You see what is happening. God is the thing to which he is praying — the goal he is trying to reach. God is also the thing inside him which is pushing him on — the motive power. God is also the road or bridge along which he is being pushed to that goal. So that the whole threefold life of the three-personal Being is actually going on in that ordinary little bedroom where an ordinary man is saying his prayers.”
Lewis lets us into the experience of the Trinity: the Father before us, the Son beside us, the Spirit within us. Nowhere does he use anything but plain, ordinary language. The only word with more than three-syllables is “ordinary.”
This was Lewis’ gift. He could channel the best of the Christian tradition effortlessly. Nowhere does one feel him talking “down” to the reader. Despite being trained in the best schools in England, Lewis thought the best language to describe an idea was the kind of conversation carried on in the pubs and pews (both of which Lewis inhabited frequently).
Lewis also channels the great thinkers of the Christian tradition. Without realizing it, the reader of Lewis’ work will be introduced to key ideas from Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, and Athanasius. Owen Barfield, a friend and sparring-partner of Lewis’, described this as Lewis’ “presence of mind.” Barfield wrote, “somehow what [Lewis] thought about everything was secretly present in what he said about anything.” To read Lewis is to get a walking tour (often without knowing it) of some of the most important ideas in Western civilization.
Yet in Lewis’ best and most lasting work, the effortlessness of Lewis’ prose transmitted ideas that Lewis had struggled and fought with for decades. His confidence in the truth of Christianity did not come effortlessly. He fought for years against the existence and goodness of God, the truth of the resurrection, and the meaning of Christ’s sacrificial death.
As a young man, Lewis’ mother died of cancer. This and other setbacks as a boy darkened Lewis’ view on life. The world was a place of frustration and pain, and so Lewis and his brother retreated into the world of imagination. Coming eventually to deny God’s existence altogether, Lewis searched for beauty in romantic poetry and heroic mythology.
For Lewis, everything beautiful was fictional, while reality was depressing. As he wrote in his autobiography, Surprised by Joy: “Such, then, was my position: to care for almost nothing but the gods and heroes, the garden of the Hesperides, Launcelot and the Grail, and to believe in nothing but atoms and evolution and military service. At times the strain was severe…”
This strain on Lewis continued from his adolescence through his early career, until he struck up an unlikely friendship with J. R. R. Tolkien. As a Northern Irishmen, Lewis had a cultural bias against Catholics. Prejudices in the English department made the friendship even more improbable: “When I arrived in this world, they … warned me to never trust a papist, and upon my arrival in the English faculty, they (openly) warned me never to trust a philologist. Tolkien was both.”
Despite the implausibility of the pairing, Lewis and Tolkien’s friendship blossomed, and led to a crucial conversation between the men that changed Lewis’s perspective. One windy evening in Oxford, Lewis, Tolkien and another friend met in Lewis’s rooms at Magdalen College and talked late into the night.
What Lewis learned was that beauty and truth do not necessarily have to be at odds. Lewis loved mythology but thought beautiful stories could not be true because reality was ultimately ugly – our best imaginings cut against the grain of the universe. Tolkien showed Lewis that the very capacity to dream, to create beauty, was a sign that reality was not ultimately ugly. God created us with a deep desire to imagine. In short, our capacity for making fiction – for telling stories of gods and heroes, Launcelot and the grail – was a pointer toward the truth that reality was ultimately beautiful.
This “good satisfying talk” changed Lewis’ perspective on the the story of the Bible and, in short order, led to Lewis’ conversion. Almost immediately Lewis began combining his rational capacities and his imagination. In 1933 he published his first work of imaginative apologetics, an allegory of his conversion called The Pilgrim’s Regress, an interesting, if not wholly successful, marriage of fiction and philosophy.
Lewis’ first big success as an apologist would not emerge for another seven years. Invited to write on the problem of evil, a subject Lewis was personally familiar with, The Problem of Pain established Lewis’ voice as a Christian apologist and led to his invitation to give a series of wartime radio talks on the Christian faith. These talks would later be collected and published as Mere Christianity.
Perhaps Lewis’ most potent and lasting legacy, however, was the way he expressed his Christian worldview through the world of fiction. Beginning with The Screwtape Letters in 1942, Lewis found ways to sneak past what he called the “watchful dragons” of cultural suspicion against the faith. Through the satirical and scabrous voice of Screwtape, we see the Christian life rightly again because we are forced to look at it topsy-turvy.
“Your patient has become humble,” Screwtape wrote to his nephew, the tempter-in-training Wormwood, “have you drawn his attention to the fact? All virtues are less formidable to us once the man is aware that he has them, but this is specially true of humility.” Lewis in a nutshell: imaginatively re-engaging the Christian tradition. In one stroke he was passing on moral wisdom, introducing us to a classical understanding of the virtues, using common language, and filtering it all through the lens of fiction.
The Chronicles of Narnia stands as Lewis’ ultimate achievement in re-enchanting the Christian faith by helping us to see it with fresh eyes. We see God again in Narnia in the form of Aslan, the creator and savior of a parallel world discovered by some English children named Peter, Susan, Edmund, and Lucy. Aslan is a big, joyful presence: gentle with the children and yet, at turns, fierce when facing off against evil. In The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, when Edmund and Lucy have to return to England, never to return to Narnia, their words echo the sentiments of many readers. Speaking to Aslan, she said:
“It isn’t Narnia [we’ll miss], you know,” sobbed Lucy. “It’s you. We shan’t meet you there. And how can we live, never meeting you?”
“But you shall meet me, dear one,” said Aslan.
“Are-are you there too, Sir?” said Edmund.
“I am,” said Aslan. “But there I have another name. You must learn to know me by that name. This was the very reason why you were brought to Narnia, that by knowing me here for a little, you may know me better there.”
Stealing past the “stained-glass” associations we have with Jesus, Lewis awoke love for God’s goodness through the figure of Aslan.
There is another contribution that often goes unnoticed even by Lewis’ many fans. Though Tolkien was instrumental in helping Lewis convert to the faith, Lewis, in turn, helped Tolkien to finish The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien was a perfectionist and easily distracted, a deadly combination for completing any major work. Only through the steady encouragement of Lewis and a few others did Tolkien finally complete his great work. Such are the designs of providence that these two men connected. If not for their friendship, it’s likely we would not have Narnia or Middle-Earth.
Lewis brought the best out of Tolkien through the gift of friendship. For many, many readers of Lewis, he has served in this way as well: walking beside us, keeping company, teaching, and helping us to see how to wrestle with our own doubts.
Lewis brought the best out of Tolkien. And he continues to bring the best out of us today.
Philip Tallon is a member of the Honors College faculty and Chair of the Apologetics Department at Houston Baptist University. He is also the author of The Absolute Basics of the Christian Faith: A Quick Sketch of Biblical Beliefs, The Poetics of Evil, and the co-editor of The Philosophy of Sherlock Holmes. You can find him on Twitter (@philiptallon). This article first appeared in the November/December 2013 issue of Good News.
by Steve | Nov 20, 2017 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
By Tom Lambrecht-
With apologies to Robert Frost, one of my favorite poets, he describes the current situation in The United Methodist Church in his poem, The Road Not Taken: “Two roads diverged in a yellow wood.” Two roads are diverging within United Methodism today, and we can see the impact of that divergence in the “sketches” offered by the Commission on a Way Forward and the Council of Bishops (COB) as described in a recent UM News Service article.
Sketch #1 is described by the COB as it “affirms the current Book of Discipline language and places a high value on accountability.” This approach is the most popular among evangelical and traditionalist United Methodists. It would require major efforts at accountability, including church trials and the “voting out” of bishops and annual conferences from United Methodism in order to be effective.
Sketch #2 is described by the COB as it “removes restrictive language and places a high value on contextualization. This sketch also specifically protects the rights of those whose conscience will not allow them to perform same gender weddings or ordain LGBTQ persons.” This model is the most popular among so-called “centrist” or moderate United Methodists. It would neither affirm nor prohibit same-sex marriage and the ordination of non-celibate LGBTQ persons. The decision would be left up to individual pastors and annual conferences. This plan has been floated before and did not find success at General Conference.
Sketch #3 is described by the COB as “grounded in a unified core that includes shared doctrine and services and one COB, while also creating different branches that have clearly defined values such as accountability, contextualization and justice.” This model would dispense with the current five geographical jurisdictions and replace them with three branches, each with a defining theology and moral stance. This option is the most complex and the most difficult to adopt, since it would require constitutional amendments.
It should be noted that the COB descriptions do not indicate how the central conferences outside the United States are accounted for in each of the models. It will be important that whatever proposal adopted by the General Conference considers fully and fairly its impact on the central conferences, so as not to harm them.
Divergent Theological Roads
These proposals suggest that there are two theological roads that are diverging in The United Methodist Church. One road believes that the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching, and that God is not glorified by this practice. Out of that theology flows the prohibition of same-sex marriage and the ordination of non-celibate LGBTQ persons. At a deeper level, this theology is based on an understanding of Scripture that gives the Bible primacy in determining what we believe and how we are to live. It values continuity with the historic Christian understanding of Scripture. Holders of this viewpoint are often called evangelicals, traditionalists, or orthodox.
A second road believes that God creates persons with a variety of sexual orientations and gender identities, and that God is glorified by persons who understand and live out of their authentic orientation and identity. Out of that theology flows the affirmation of same-sex marriage and the ordination of non-celibate LGBTQ persons. At a deeper level, this theology is based on an understanding of God’s revelation as continuing over time, based on but sometimes superseding the witness of Scripture. It values the incorporation of new insights and new understandings from science and philosophy that can reinterpret or even render obsolete the teachings of Scripture. Holders of this viewpoint are often called progressives.
These theological roads lead in different directions. They truly diverge. The models make room for that divergence with the “gracious exit” path that is provided with all three. Under Sketch #1, followers of the second theological road will need to depart from the UM Church, either willingly or unwillingly. Under Sketch #2, many followers of the first theological road will need to depart by reason of conscience. And the exit path is available to both groups under Sketch #3, if they find they cannot live with that model.
Strategic Roads
These proposals also suggest that there are two strategic roads that can be taken. A choice will need to be made between separation from and separation within. Both Sketches #1 and #2 envision the creation of a fairly univocal and united Methodism, from which those who cannot live with it will need to depart. In the case of Sketch #1, it is clear that progressives will need to depart and form their own separate church. Many progressives have said that they will not willingly depart. Their goal is not to form a separate denomination, but to change The United Methodist Church to an affirming view of LGBTQ practices. Progressives would need to be forced out, which would require years of accountability actions, trials, and discipline. It would have to overcome the reluctance of our current bishops to enforce the Discipline. This model would not end the fighting within our denomination and therefore would face a very difficult challenge in succeeding, even if adopted.
Sketch #2 is a bit more subtle. On the surface, it purports to create a space where each person can act according to his/her own conscience and beliefs. However, this model is inherently unstable. It is impossible for a church to hold two contradictory theological positions at the same time for long. Many evangelicals will choose to depart from the denomination because they cannot in good conscience be part of a church that permits practices that they believe go against Scripture. Many progressives will not rest until LGBTQ persons are fully affirmed everywhere in the denomination. They cannot long tolerate a situation where parts of the church are allowed to discriminate (in their view) against LGBTQ persons. So the pressure to affirm LGBTQ practices will continue, which pressure will in turn drive more evangelicals to depart from the denomination. The whole “centrist” approach appears to be a strategy to hold as much of the church together as possible while people either die or change their minds to embrace a progressive understanding.
Sketch #3 takes a different route. Rather than the separation from that will result from following models #1 or #2, Model #3 provides for separation within the denomination. A space would be created for each theological perspective–one that affirms LGBTQ practices and one that does not. A third space would allow such practices, but not require them. The individual spaces or branches would be the primary place where theology and ministry would be worked out and applied. Accountability would be maintained in each branch according to that branch’s understanding. Each branch would have to have the ability to determine its level of participation in any shared general agencies of the church. Each branch would have to have the ability to set its own standards and qualifications for clergy. Each branch would have to be able to elect its own bishops. And each branch would have to be financially self-supporting, such that funding is not going to support a branch that is in disagreement with the branch providing the funding. (Some have called this provision a “financial firewall.”)
For those thinking outside the box, this third model may hold the greatest potential for keeping the most people and congregations in The United Methodist Church. However, it is also the most difficult to adopt and implement. It would require numerous constitutional amendments, which takes a 2/3 vote at General Conference and a 2/3 vote of all annual conference members. There would need to be a several-year transition period of implementation, as annual conferences and congregations, as well as bishops and individual clergy, make their choices about which branch to affiliate with. If quick and easy are the requirements for a solution, then Sketch #2 is probably the best option. If one is looking at a way to keep the most people united, then Sketch #3 could fill the bill.
So there are forks in the road ahead: We will need to decide which theological road to follow. Will we affirm LGBTQ practices or not? And we will need to decide which strategic road to follow. Will we go for separation from or separation within? As in Frost’s poem, the road we choose, both individually and collectively, will make all the difference.
For further analysis of the three models in sketch form, I recommend blogs by David Watson and Joel Watts. Obviously, we need to have a lot more details about each of the options in order to fully understand and respond to them. Much more will need to be said about them, examining both the positives and the negatives of each. But we now have enough of an idea that we can begin to think about the possibilities inherent in each approach.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Nov 15, 2017 | In the News
By Michael Yaconelli
Children tell God what they are genuinely thinking. They are honest, simple, and direct. They understand that God is listening, and they understand that prayers are very important. Somehow when we become adults, we forget how important praying is. So if you and I are going to be like little children, we must not forget our prayers.
Billy Graham came to Sacramento, the capital of California, [in 1996] to hold his crusade at the Arco Arena, just north of downtown. The night before the crusade was to begin, choir rehearsal went late. One of the members of the choir was driving home through downtown when he noticed a man slumped over on the steps of the capitol building. It was cold outside, almost midnight, and not the safest of places to be. The choir member decided he could not ignore the plight of this poor, homeless man. He was nervous as he approached the man, not knowing what to expect. The homeless man was crouched almost cocoonlike on the steps, and the choir member reached out and gently touched his shoulder.
“Sir, can I help you?” he said. “Are you okay?” The man looked up. It was Billy Graham. He was praying for the city of Sacramento.
Billy Graham is famous. He has people all over the world praying for him and his crusades, but he still knows where the power of his crusades comes from: his moments praying with his Savior. In this day of TV evangelists with their flashy clothes, sophisticated fund-raising, limos, gold necklaces, and Lear jets, it’s nice to know that one evangelist still trusts the silent, unflashy power of prayer. Billy Graham has not forgotten to say his prayers. And neither should we.
Content taken from Dangerous Wonder: The Adventure of Childlike Faith by Michael Yaconelli, © 1998. United by permission of NavPress. All rights reserved. Represented by Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. To order the book, click HERE.
