by Steve | Feb 7, 2017 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
Getwell Road UMC, Southaven, MS
By Walter Fenton-
Two large local United Methodist churches in the Mississippi Annual Conference have taken congregation wide votes to leave the denomination. Ninety six percent of the parishioners at Getwell Road UM Church in Southaven and 99 percent at The Orchard UM Church in Tupelo supported separation on Sunday, February 5.
The senior pastors at both churches explained that their congregations are now in a process of discernment with the annual conference regarding their departures. Getwell Road UM Church, a vibrant and growing suburban congregation in the greater Memphis, Tennessee, area, averages over 800 people in worship. And The Orchard is the 15th largest United Methodist church in the U. S. in terms of worship attendance. On average, over 2,700 people attend its weekend services.
“We want our departure to be as peaceful and God honoring as possible,” said the Rev. Bryan Collier of The Orchard. “We will be in conversation with Bishop James Swanson about the details and timing of this process. We want to act honorably and peacefully.”
Bishop Swanson, the resident bishop of the Mississippi Episcopal Area released a statement on Monday afternoon informing the conference of the news. He reported that he and two district superintendents are engaging in a discernment process with the pastors and their congregations.
“Our staff and lay leadership have had conversations about this move for some time; it’s not something we rushed into,” said the Rev. Bill Beavers of Getwell Road UM Church. “This past October we invited the whole congregation to engage in conversation and prayer over the possibility. Several serious months of discernment preceded our congregational vote.”
Both pastors cited their congregations’ frustration with the denomination’s long and acrimonious debate over the church’s sexual ethics and teachings on marriage. Going forward, they said their congregations want to focus on kingdom matters so they are removing themselves from unproductive battles that distract them from their larger missions.
Collier cited the Judicial Council’s (essentially the denomination’s “Supreme Court”) impending decision regarding the validity of the Western Jurisdiction’s July election of the Rev. Karen Oliveto as the denomination’s first openly gay bishop. This April the Council is expected to answer several questions of law pertaining to her election.
“Either way, the Council’s decision is just going to prolong a bitter and divisive debate,” Collier said. “We don’t want to be part of the argument anymore.
We have more important things we need to do in the Tupelo community and well beyond it.”
Neither pastor nor Bishop Swanson offered a hard timeline regarding the discernment process they have agreed to enter into. Swanson asked for prayers for all concerned.
“I want to do my best to take care of and do right by Getwell Road,” said Beavers. “Our entire leadership team wants to be proactive, rather than reactive. We will continue to be in prayer and in a time of discernment as we work with Bishop Swanson.”
Other sources have reported that additional local UM churches in the Mississippi Annual Conference are contemplating similar actions in March or late April after the Judicial Council answers the questions of law pertaining to Bishop Oliveto.
Walter Fenton is a United Methodist clergy person and an analyst for Good News.
by Steve | Feb 6, 2017 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
By Walter Fenton-
Two recent guest commentaries by the United Methodist News Service (UMNS) warrant a response. Both pieces are critical of conservative United Methodists. One, without evidence, makes a scurrilous claim about the work of evangelical groups at General Conference. And the other is a retired bishop’s attempt to blame others for the crisis now confronting our denomination.
Rev. Lloyd T. Nyarota by Mike DuBose, UMNS
In early January, UMNS posted Zimbabwean Rev. Lloyd Nyarota’s commentary where he makes the sensational claim that conservatives in the U.S. “have managed to drag my [African] brothers and sisters by the collar to vote with them” at General Conference.
Nyarota, presently living in Alberta, Canada, serves a two-point charge for the United Church of Canada. Although he has never served as a General Conference delegate himself, he has worked in the corridors of the conference as a consultant for the UM’s reflexively liberal General Board of Church and Society.
Here at Good News we understand commentary; we write a fair bit of it ourselves. But thankfully our editor exercises a sharp pen when it comes to claims that have no basis in fact, even in commentaries.
Nyarota’s audacious accusation is not supported by any evidence. He went on to claim, again without evidence, that the relationship between Africans and US conservatives “is like that of a horse and rider, which is more colonial.”
We would have considered this fair game if Nyarota had produced just one African General Conference delegate (there were several hundred) who would have concurred with his claim or given some evidence of how it is based in facts or even an interpretation of them.
Had African delegates to General Conference been asked, they would have testified that the working relationship between themselves and U.S. evangelicals is one of partnership. Ultimately, it was General Conference delegates of all stripes that empowered Africans as equals at General Conference. This was evident by the unprecedented number of Africans elected as legislative committee officers and other positions of leadership and responsibility in 2016.
More recently there is the case of retired Bishop William Lewis’ commentary, a post loosely in touch with reality.
He would have us believe the church’s 45-year-old debate over its sexual ethics and teachings on marriage has been largely manufactured by “the theological
Bishop William B. Lewis by Mike DuBose, UMNS
culture of Wilmore, Kentucky, and … the Tenderloin District in San Francisco.” We don’t know whether to be offended or flattered by the bishop’s flamboyant hyperbole, but we do know he is asking his readers to believe the preposterous.
The idea that Wilmore, Kentucky (aka, Asbury Theological Seminary and Good News), and United Methodists attending church in the Tenderloin District of San Francisco (aka, Glide Memorial UM Church) have wagged the institutional dog for the past five decades is simply not true. The debates over homosexuality and how to define the institution of marriage have not only demanded the close attention of mainline Protestants and Roman Catholics, they have also been addressed in local, state and federal legislatures, and adjudicated by courts at every level. It is fair to say the debate over these matters has been one of the most contested issues our culture has addressed in the past 50 years.
But according to Lewis, most United Methodists are “hardly aware [the debate] is going on, … and [they] don’t get bent out of shape about it.” They are “unwitting victims of [a] conflict” ginned-up by extremist on the left and the right in San Francisco and Wilmore. Please.
If rank-and-file United Methodists are unaware General Conference has been debating these issues for the past 45 years, then they are being ill served by clergy and its denominational leaders. The church seldom gets the luxury of choosing the issues it must confront. And when it tries to pretend particular challenges do not exist, it is only sowing the seeds for a greater crisis in the future.
We’ve heard this claptrap from UM Church institutionalists like Lewis for many years now. It insults people’s intelligence and impugns the motives of those on the left, right, and in the center who genuinely believe issues of justice, morality, long held church teachings, Scriptural interpretation, and the institution of marriage are all at stake.
Lewis, instead, takes a high-handed view of the more public parties to the debate. He blames them for the crisis now confronting us. As he puts it, people in the “Tenderloin District,” who want what they want, and a “Wilmore faction that has become an extensive enterprise … have fueled the greatest threat to the unity of the denomination in more than a century.”
This is revealing, and one of the reasons the Council of Bishops has not only failed to deal with the crisis, but has made matters worse. Lewis, like some of his colleagues, has convinced himself he bears no responsibility for it and is eager to shift blame to others. No one, more than a bishop it seems, enjoys assuming he or she is above the fray, unsullied by ulterior motives, and therefore justified in wagging a finger at the bad boys and girls on the left and right for making a mess of the church.
To be fair, the bishop does propose a solution for the crisis. But of course, it is an institutional solution, not one grounded in Scripture, church teaching, or justice, but in simple expediency. Its chief aim is to preserve the institution, which is often dressed-up in the garb of saving church unity.
For Lewis, sexual ethics and Christian marriage are matters that do not rise to the level of the general church’s concern, or not at least to a level where it needs to broadly prescribe behavior based on its ethics and how it understands the institution of marriage. Therefore, he throws his support behind “local option” plans like Adam Hamilton’s “A Way Forward” or the Connectional Table’s “A Third Way.”
On a purely practical level these plans, as their authors now acknowledge, have no chance of passing at the next or a foreseeable General Conference. To Lewis and other institutionalists’ consternation, too many delegates believe sexual ethics and teachings on marriage warrant the global church’s careful consideration and clear guidance.
But the greater flaw in these institutional proposals is how bereft they are of ecclesiological and theological reflection. They are purely practical in nature. With a kind of collective shrug, institutional proponents of these plans essentially say to LGBTQ people and their advocates, “We’re all for justice, but only in a practical kind of way. We believe you should have justice, but only in those places where other people are willing to grant you a measure of it.”
And to conservatives who are deeply concerned about rooting the community’s sexual ethics and understanding of marriage in Scripture and 2,000 years of Christian teaching, institutionalists essentially say, “We think your views on sexuality and marriage are culturally out of step, but hey, if you can get other backward people in your annual conference to go along with you, that’s your business, not ours. Just leave the rest of us alone.”
And of course it is all the easier to offer these morally bankrupt responses if you are quite sure the people you are responding to are just “factions” looking to protect their “vested interests” and “extensive enterprises,” as if you have none of your own.
The church paid two major consulting firms to tell the bishops a large majority of United Methodists have little confidence and trust in its U. S. leadership. Blithe blame-shifting commentaries offer little to nothing in restoring a lost sense of confidence and respect in our leaders.
Too many of our U. S. leaders of the past 50 years blame others for the church’s sad state of affairs even though they sought positions that vested them with the church’s executive power. It seldom seems to dawn on many of them – definitely not Lewis – that maybe if they had strenuously promoted, defended and enforced the General Conference’s teachings on these matters the church would not be facing its existential crisis.
Walter Fenton is a United Methodist clergy person and an analyst for Good News.
by Steve | Jan 25, 2017 | In the News
NORCROSS, Ga.—The Mission Society has unveiled a new name that aims to further sharpen the focus and effectiveness of its wide-ranging work among some of the least-reached peoples around the world. 
As TMS Global (www.tms-global.org), the interdenominational agency believes its training, church planting and mobilization efforts will be multiplied through a new name that looks to the future while holding onto its past.
The change takes into account strategy and security issues that have arisen in the 33 years since The Mission Society was founded. Globalization and technological advances have presented new opportunities and challenges in missions, while some parts of the world are more hostile to the gospel and closed to overt “missionary” activity.
TMS Global retains the initials of its old name, with the letters also reflecting the heart of the organization’s work—training missionaries and churches, mobilizing the body of Christ, and serving. Adding “global” underscores a commitment to ministry around the world, especially among the least reached.
“We know from the Bible that names are important to God,” said TMS Global President and CEO, the Rev. Max Wilkins. “He gave people new names at key moments in their lives, to define who they truly were and who he intended them to be. We believe that in a similar way our name change is part of better preparing us for the future God has.”
TMS Global formally unveils its new identity in the latest issue of its magazine, Unfinished (www. tms-global.org/unfinished-magazine), which explores how the change highlights the five ways the organization is responding to contemporary global needs. They are a focus on the least-reached, capitalizing on the strengths of millennials, reaching populations on the move, training churches to impact cities and emphasizing spiritual formation.
The renaming is in line with a broader trend in missions. Other groups have changed their names in recent times: among them, Campus Crusade for Christ became CRU, while the U.S. Center for World Missions is now Frontier Ventures.
TMS Global is actually the third name for what began as The Mission Society for United Methodists in 1984. It later became The Mission Society, to reflect an ongoing commitment to becoming an interdenominational agency, while honoring its Wesleyan heritage and beliefs. Today the group’s 180 missionaries at work in more than 30 countries represent more than a dozen different denominations.
They are also diverse in their activities. TMS Global ministries include agricultural training, evangelism, church planting, discipleship, literacy, leadership development, medical care, relief and aid, teaching English as a second language and well drilling, among many others.
In becoming TMS Global, the Norcross, Ga.-headquartered organization has made a second name change. Its church outreach effort, helping local congregations get excited about and more engaged in world missions, is now called “Activate.” The new title aims to capture the dynamic nature of the training and mobilization program for local churches.
“We are excited about what is ahead for TMS Global,” said Wilkins. “We believe it is a new name for a new day—a new generation of cross-cultural witnesses who will share the good news of Jesus’ love incarnationally around the globe.”
More information is available at (www.tms-global.org).
###
TMS GLOBAL (www.tms-global.org) mobilizes and equips the body of Christ to share the good news of the gospel, with an emphasis on the least-reached peoples of the world. Workers are engaged in a wide range of dynamic, culturally-sensitive ministries, from training and leadership development to literacy, medical care and relief aid.
by Steve | Jan 23, 2017 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
Bishop Grant Hagiya, UMNS
By Walter Fenton-
According to a United Methodist News Service article dated August 23, 2016, Bishop Grant Hagiya, president of the Western Jurisdiction’s College of Bishops, said newly elected Bishop Karen Oliveto, an open lesbian married to a deaconess in The United Methodist Church, “faces multiple complaints under church law … [and] that he has initiated the church’s supervisory process that seeks to reach a resolution without trial.”
No one has heard anything since.
Oliveto’s election came after General Conference had agreed to table all petitions to change the church’s sexual ethics, and after it had authorized the Council of Bishops to appoint a commission to study the matter and present a definitive plan for resolving the long running debate at an unprecedented, called General Conference. Delegates, church leaders, and bishops left the conference with an understanding the church’s teachings on marriage and sexuality remained fully in force while also allowing time for the commission to do its work.
Oliveto’s election also came amid heightened acts of defiance and votes by progressive annual conferences to reject the will of the church’s governance structure and its good order. When the Western Jurisdiction announced her election it rocked a church already reeling from the long and acrimonious debate, and a massive drop in worship attendance over the past 10 years.
In response, a number of active bishops issued statements lamenting her election as a breach of the church’s teachings and covenant. The South Central
Bishop Elaine Stanovsky receives Holy Communion from protesters, UMNS
Jurisdictional Conference immediately petitioned the denomination’s Judicial Council (its “Supreme Court”) regarding the legality of the Western Jurisdiction’s action. The executive committee of the Council of Bishops, citing “the great importance of the matter,” asked the Judicial Council to expedite its hearing of the case. And of course many United Methodists regarded her election as an event likely to tip the church towards separation or dissolution.
In short, Oliveto’s election has pushed the church to the brink of division, and its ramifications are almost certainly taking a toll on worship attendance and giving across the connection. But despite all of the turmoil, the Western Jurisdiction’s College of Bishops has said nothing about its disposition of the “multiple complaints” filed against her.
Its dithering should surprise no one. In October 2013, shortly after retired Bishop Melvin Talbert presided at a same-sex service in Birmingham, Alabama, the Council of Bishops, in closed-door sessions at its November 2013 meetings, directed two of its colleagues to file a complaint against him. The complaint was finally filed in March 2014, and the Western Jurisdiction College of Bishops took another nine months for investigation, conversation and deliberation. It finally announced a trivial resolution of the matter on December 30 of the same year.
Talbert’s case was not a complicated one, nor is Oliveto’s. There was no ambiguity about Talbert’s participation in a same-sex wedding in Birmingham. He participated with the express aim of drawing attention to his act of defiance. In the same way, Oliveto has never attempted to conceal she is married to her female partner, and in the past she has boasted that she has presided at over 50 same-sex weddings.
Given the liberal tilt of her four episcopal colleagues in the Western Jurisdiction, few people believe the panel handling the complaint will do anything more than announce a “just resolution” that leaves Oliveto in place. But that decision would be clarifying for the whole church, and it would inform the work of the special commission as it ponders the realistic options before it.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with Oliveto’s presiding at same-sex services or her own marriage, fair-minded people can and should expect a just and timely resolution of a case with implications for the entire connection. At a minimum, the Western Jurisdiction College of Bishops owes the church some report on the status of the complaints filed against her.
Its failure to act or to even report on the matters is indicative of either arrogance or disdain for the wider church.
Walter Fenton is a United Methodist clergy person and an analyst for Good News.
by Steve | Jan 12, 2017 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
Archive: Methodism’s Silent Minority
The following article by the Rev. Dr. Charles W. Keysor was published in the Christian Advocate, July 14, 1966. Keysor’s essay galvanized evangelicals in the then Methodist Church. Within months of its publication the Good News movement was launched in 1967.
Within The Methodist Church in the United States is a silent minority group. It is not represented in the higher councils of the church. Its members seem to have little influence in Nashville, Evanston, or on Riverside Drive. Its concepts are often abhorrent to Methodist officialdom at annual conference and national levels.
I speak of those Methodists who are variously called “evangelicals” or “conservatives” or “fundamentalists.” A more accurate description is “orthodox,” for these brethren hold a traditional understanding of the Christian faith.
Orthodox Methodists come in theologically assorted shapes, sizes, and colors. But, unfortunately, the richness and subtlety of orthodox thought are often overlooked and/or misunderstood. There lurks in many a Methodist mind a deep intolerance toward the silent minority who are orthodox. This is something of a paradox, because this unbrotherly spirit abounds at a time when Methodism is talking much about ecumenicity-which means openness toward those whose beliefs and traditions may differ.
Yet it seems almost an intellectual reflex action to regard the orthodox brother as one who is ipso facto, narrow-minded, naive, contentious, and potentially schismatic.
This familiar stereotype contains only a shadow of truth. Orthodoxy is more complex and more profound than its many critics seem to realize. Intellectual honesty-let alone Christian charity-demands more objectivity than the church now accords to its silent minority.
Webster’s Dictionary tells us that orthodox means “conforming to the Christian faith as formulated in the church creeds and confessions.” These are Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed, and Anabaptist, which means that orthodoxy is the ultimate in ecumenicity. But what is orthodoxy?
Actually, there is no mystique. We who are orthodox believe that the Christian faith is comprehensively declared in Holy Scripture and is succinctly summarized in the Apostle’s Creed. Here, we feel, is faith’s essence, doctrinally speaking.
Orthodoxy in America has developed a theological epicenter known as the “five fundamentals.” These are by no means the whole of orthodox doctrine, as many people mistakenly suppose. Instead, these five points constitute a common ground for all who are truly orthodox. But beyond this common ground lies an enormous area of Christian truth where orthodox Christians disagree vigorously.
Despite the broadness of orthodoxy’s doctrinal scope, one must examine the five fundamentals in order to understand orthodoxy’s point of view.
1. Inspiration of Scripture. Orthodoxy believes with a passion that the whole Bible is God’s eternal, unfailing truth. Some portions of this truth are more important than others (Isaiah 5 towers above Esther, for example), but everything in the Scriptures has sacred significance. A thing is not true because it happens to be included in the Bible; we believe it is in the Bible because the thing itself is true. Orthodoxy believes that God has expressed scriptural truth through human personality, by the agency of God’s Holy Spirit. Perverted orthodoxy limits inspiration to the King James Version, as though God had somehow lowered it from heaven on a string back in 1611. Another unfortunate mutation of orthodox doctrine is the idea of mechanic dictation: that human beings were nothing more than stenographers, recording mechanically every jot and tittle that was dictated from above.
True orthodoxy shuns these mistaken views of inspiration. Instead, historic orthodoxy regards inspiration of Scripture as a dynamic, continuing activity of the Holy Spirit:
First,God’s Spirit inspired the original authors, causing them to perceive and record God’s truth in their own God-given literary styles. (Hence the difference between James and Ezekiel.)
Second, acting through translators, redactors, and canonizing bodies, the Spirit has preserved Scripture from significant effort during the long and torturous process of transmission, right down to the present moment.
Third, the Spirit enables believers to get God’s intended meaning from Scripture. To properly understand Scripture without the Spirit’s illuminating inspiration is no more possible than for an airplane to fly without wings and engine! This is why pure orthodoxy considers invalid any hermeneutic which disregards or minimizes the Spirit’s threefold work of dynamic inspiration.
2. The virgin birth of Christ. We believe that our Lord was, literally, “conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary.” This must be true, or it would not have been written and transmitted in Holy Scripture. Naive? If so, we who are orthodox accept the label-along with such naive men of faith as the authors of Matthew and Luke, St. Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and our own John Wesley.
We do not believe in Jesus because of the unusual circumstances surrounding his entry into the world via Incarnation. On the contrary, our experience of Christ’s lordship teaches us empirically what Scripture tells – that the entire realm of nature is subject to His sovereign authority. Therefore, Christ is not subject to known limitations of “natural law.” Order and unity and coherence for the entire cosmos center in Christ. Believing this about him, we logically believe that our Lord could be virgin born – just as the Bible reports.
3. The substitutionary Atonement of Christ. What happened on Calvary is a mystery which can never be adequately explained by theories and/or analogies. Scripture seems to justify several explanations of the Atonement. In trying to fathom this mystery of mysteries, the theologian is something like an engineer trying to locate the main channel of the Mississippi River at flood stage. The river is two miles wide, but careful examination reveals what undoubtedly is the main channel of the river.
Orthodoxy believes that the main channel of Atonement truth lies in the area of substitution: that somehow Christ on the cross paid the price of transgression which a righteous and holy God properly requires. We do recognize certain validity in “moral influence” and other such theories. But orthodoxy believes it is more correct to say that our Lord, “for a world of lost sinners was slain.”
4. The physical Resurrection of Christ. We think that Christianity is a hoax unless Christ rose bodily from the grave – as the Scriptures report. We do not believe that the Bible would make such a central emphasis on His being raised from death bodily if this were not true. Frankly, we are tired of ingenious theories which charge the Resurrection up to the wishful thinking of primitive Christians. More convincing to us is the Spirit of our risen Lord, bearing witness with our spirits that “He lives!”
5. The return of Christ. Orthodox Christians hold various views of the Parousia’s place in the order of last things. But all truly orthodox believers agree that Jesus Christ will return physically to “judge the (living) and the dead.” We do not regard the Great Assize passage (Matthew 25: 31-46) as parabolic teaching; instead, we believe it is a literal foretelling of the future judgment which Christ will execute when He comes again.
Perverted orthodoxy has made an illusory religion out of millennial speculation. This clearly ignores Jesus’ teaching that the time of His appearing is known only to the mind of God. Jesus did not intend for His disciples to dawdle with date-setting. We are not to waste time peering into the sky waiting for a homecoming Hero to solve the world’s problems!
Instead we are to let our Christian light shine in a dark world. Our calling is to be redeeming the time for the days are evil. This precludes two extremes: (1) setting dates for His return; (2) Pointing negatively to the fact that early Christian expectations have not been fulfilled according to man’s time scale. To both, orthodoxy says, “Be ready! But as you wait in confidence, be a Christ to your neighbor.”
Orthodoxy clings with joy to the “blessed hope” of Christ’s physical return. This expectation strengthens us for the living of these days. One of the most pronounced characteristics about authentic orthodoxy is its vibrant sense of eschatological expectancy. This is God’s gift to those, who cling to the “blessed hope” as we live in the eschatological twilight zone, between promise and fulfillment.
How many orthodox believers are there among the people called Methodist?
Probably there are quite a few. The evidence is elusive, but several clues bear examination. For one thing, more than 10,000 Methodist churches are using some Christian education materials based on orthodox theology. These materials do not come out of Nashville but from Elgin and Wheaton, Ill., and Glendale, Calif.
Theology is not the only reason why the wide-scale defection exists (price, service rendered by the publishers, and educational methodology are all significant factors). But theology cannot be dismissed by thoughtful Methodists who ponder the matter. The tenacity with which so many Methodists cling to non-Methodist literature strongly suggests the existence of an orthodox stratum down at Methodism’s grass roots.
Another clue was unearthed during preparations for our new Methodist Hymnal. Surveys of musical tastes showed a powerful desire for those “good old” gospel songs. Of course there are various reasons for this. One of the most important is that gospel music emphasizes strongly the five fundamentals, which the Gospel likewise emphasizes. One reason for the persistence of gospel music is the people’s persistent interest in the Gospel.
What is orthodoxy’s future within The Methodist Church? Persecution is not impossible, for just recently a high official in Nashville was heard to declare, “We are going to stamp out the last vestiges of fundamentalism from The Methodist Church!” Within the author’s lifetime, a Methodist bishop threatened to drive from his conference any man who affirmed from the pulpit Christ’s Second Coming.
More likely, however, is the objective prediction made by Dr. Paul Hessert, professor of historical theology at Garrett Theological Seminary. He foresees a continuing eclipse of orthodox influence within the seminary trained Methodist ministry. He also predicts that orthodoxy will continue among the laity – and, therefore, will remain strong among supply preachers.
As to the hierarchy of the church, Dr. Hessert believes that the present liberal influence will gradually give way to the newer theologies, which represent an evolution of old-fashioned liberalism. Neo-orthodoxy will have a lessening influence, be believes. The reason is that neo-orthodoxy is essentially a compromise position, and its adherents tend to slide away-mostly toward the newer liberalism.
Orthodoxy seems destined to remain as Methodism’s silent minority. Here lies the challenge: We who are orthodox must become the un-silent minority! Orthodoxy must shed its “poor cousin” inferiority complex and enter forthrightly into the current theological debate. We who are orthodox must boldly declare our understanding of Christian truth, as God has given these convictions to us. We must speak in love and with prophetic fearlessness, and must be prepared to suffer.
But regardless of the consequences, we must be heard in Nashville, in Evanston, and on Riverside Drive. Most of all, we must be heard in thousands of pulpits, for the people called Methodist will not cease to hunger for the good news of Jesus Christ, incarnate, crucified, risen, and coming again.
We must not speak as right-wing fanatics, intending to subvert the “establishment” and remake it in our own orthodox age. Instead, we must speak to our Christian brothers as Christian brothers, trusting that God will direct and prosper our witness to the truth as we see it in Christ Jesus our Lord.
____________________________________________________
+The Rev. Charles Keysor passed away on October 22, 1985. He became the founding editor of Good News. Photo: Good News archives.
Reprinted from Christian Advocate, July 14, 1966. Copyright (C) 1966 by The Methodist Publishing House.
by Steve | Jan 9, 2017 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
By Walter Fenton-
Shortly before Christmas, local churches in the Mountain Sky Episcopal Area of The United Methodist Church received a letter requesting monetary gifts for a “Vital Congregations Sustentation Fund.”
The letter, signed by the 16 jurisdictional delegates from the area’s two annual conferences (Rocky Mountain and Yellowstone), explained that since the election and appointment of the Rev. Karen Oliveto as the area’s bishop, “there has been stress in some of our most theologically diverse congregations. Some have lost members. Others have had members withdraw their financial support.”
The communiqué goes on to state that the fund is being created, “to provide churches with short-term financial assistance … where a pastor’s compensation is at risk.”
In short, some of the very Western Jurisdictional delegates who ignored the church’s teachings on marriage and rejected its sexual ethics by voting for Oliveto, are now asking laypeople and clergy, many of whom respect the will of General Conference, affirm the church’s governance structure, and believe its teachings on these matters are grounded in Scripture, to fund the consequences of their defiance.
For years some progressives and institutionalists have claimed the church’s plunging worship attendance could be traced to its archaic sexual ethics and its failure to affirm same-sex marriage. And in fact, the letter implies the need for financial assistance is just a “short-term” fix, presumably to be rectified when secular liberals and millennials begin pouring into local churches prepared to tithe and lend a hand repairing the church’s roof.
But before anyone buys into this dreamy scenario they might want to see how things are going for old-line denominations like the Presbyterian Church USA (PC-USA), the Episcopal Church, and the United Church of Christ (UCC), denominations that have been running this experiment for the past decade or two.
In early 2016 PC-USA officials projected the denomination would shed 400,000 members from 2015-2020. This is on top of a whopping 28% plunge in membership between 2005 and 2015. The denomination raises funds for the general church by assessing a per member amount that each congregation is expected to pay. That figure is set to rise 12.5 percent over the next five years, even as the church plans to cut outlays by 12 percent from 2017-2020. Perversely, even increasing the per-capita member amount fails to generate the necessary funds for growing the church when membership falls so precipitously. UM Church officials should take note.
Since the consecration of an openly gay bishop in 2003 and the liberalizing of its sexual ethics and teachings on marriage, the Episcopal Church has watched its worship attendance drop by an astounding 26 percent from 2005 to 2015. It is in the process of closing seminaries and has even contemplated selling its church headquarters building in New York City.
And finally, the UCC, which was the earliest adopter of a liberalizing strategy, is now in free fall. It has laid-off numerous church officials, watched hundreds of churches exit the denomination, and seen the vast majority of the remaining ones shrink in size. Membership plunged by 28 percent between 2005 and 2015, and church officials warned earlier this year that on its current trajectory the denomination would essentially collapse by 2045.
To be sure, some will respond that church is about more than seeing how many people you can pack into your pews. But by the same token, church leaders, like the 16 delegates who signed the request for “financial assistance,” need to candidly state the likely long-term cost their agenda will require of people in the Rocky Mountain and Yellowstone annual conferences.
Here’s betting it will be very steep.
Walter Fenton is a United Methodist clergy person and an analyst for Good News.
