![Love in Action for Lepers]()
by Steve | Jan 12, 2018 | January-February 2018, Magazine
John Farr displays carvings and baskets that he makes to help support himself at the Ganta Leprosy and TB Rehab Center. The center is part of the United Methodist Ganta Mission Station in Ganta, Liberia. Photo by Mike DuBose, UMNS.
By Joey Butler-
When John Flomo was 15 years old, he contracted leprosy and was sent to the Ganta Leprosy and TB Rehab Center for treatment. That was in 1966. He never left. “Long time. Many buildings have been built since I came,” he said. “They take care of me, feed me, give me a place to sleep.” (The rehab center is located in Ganta, the second most-populated city in the West African nation of Liberia. There are 275,500 United Methodists in Liberia.)
With nimble hands missing most of their fingers, Flomo weaves baskets and carves wood to sell to have a little extra money. He uses it to buy additional food — his favorite is pepper soup, a spicy, gumbo-like stew. “I tell them ‘thank you’ plenty. My father, my mother, all of them died. So they take care of me. I tell God, ‘Thank you for them.’”
The center was founded in the mid-1920s by Dr. George Way Harley, an American Methodist missionary and physician. He built the Ganta Methodist Mission Station, which houses the rehab center as well as a school, church and the Ganta Methodist Hospital. “Dr. Harley came to Liberia in 1926 as part of the Harvard Medical Expedition, and once he set foot in Ganta, he never left,” said John Brimah, officer in charge of the rehab center.
“When he opened a clinic at the mission, many were coming and those who were coming had skin diseases, including leprosy,” Brimah added. “Because leprosy was a disease many were afraid of, other patients complained about being treated in the same place. So the mission clinic became solely for skin diseases and leprosy — this became a leper colony.”
“When we came here in the ’80s,” Brimah said, “we found some people who had been here for so many years already and they couldn’t go home. Those people are older and we have to care for them for their lifetime. There are about 18 of them.”
Leprosy is a chronic infectious disease that mainly affects the skin, the peripheral nerves, mucosa of the upper respiratory tract and the eyes. Leprosy is now curable, and treatment in the early stages can prevent disability. But the age-old disease, mentioned frequently in the Bible, was often accompanied by fears and misunderstanding. Many leprosy patients were shunned by their families and communities, even after they were cured.
Leprosy is mentioned many times in the Old Testament, but the story that is most familiar to Christians is the Gospel story of Jesus healing 10 men with leprosy.
For a long time, doctors who were monitoring the mission station also came to check on the patients and treat them. Around the 1980s, Brimah said, the Methodist Mission gave the clinic to the Liberian government. The government assigned Catholic missionaries to care for the patients. The clinical care responsibilities still fall to the Catholics, but The United Methodist Church owns the land, and the two consider the center a partnership. There is a United Methodist church on the grounds; the mission station sends pastors there to hold worship and tend to the spiritual needs of the patients, since many of them are unable to travel.
Pastor James Y. Koroloroblee, who is a vice principal at Ganta United Methodist School, is one of the preachers who leads worship at the colony. “People have been there since the 1950s and 1960s,” he said. “There’s a fellow there who came after treatment, went back to his sisters and they rejected him. He said, ‘I have a place where people are willing to accept me,’ so he left and came back here.”
Brimah said the staff mainly treats three diseases: leprosy, tuberculosis and buruli ulcers, which are large wounds afflicting many who work on farms in rural areas infected from swamps and still water. The staff of 65 treats around 150 patients at a time.
Marie Clinton has been a nurse on staff there since 1989. She described the process of cleaning and dressing patients’ wounds, which begins in the early morning until about 1 p.m. every day. “We soak them for 30 minutes in one liter of water to one tablespoon of salt, every day. With ulcer patients, sometimes we have to wash the wounds and cover with gauze. With leprosy patients, sometimes we have to put Vaseline around the wounds to prevent the skin from cracking.”
Sheraton Nyanaleh, an aid in the TB lab and a United Methodist, said he considers his work to be an extension of the church’s ministry. “For the ministry of Jesus, we believe in teaching, health and healing…. I’m proud to be United Methodist,” he said.
Cobblers make custom shoes and sandals for patients whose feet have been affected by leprosy at the Ganta Leprosy and TB Rehab Center. From left are: Porter Willie, John Giddings and Martin Dolo. The center is part of the United Methodist Ganta Mission Station in Ganta, Liberia. Photo by Mike DuBose, UMNS.
The rehab center also houses a shoe shop that designs and builds custom sandals for each patient’s unique needs. In addition, they assemble and repair wheelchairs, make armpit and elbow crutches, and make prosthetics when materials are available.
Shop worker Martin Dolo said that leprosy patients are susceptible to losing sensation in their feet. “We have to mold the shoe in a way that protects them from losing sensation and also when they’ve lost their toes. Without toes you lose balance. We mold in a way that they are comfortable and also retain their balance.” Dolo said the workers can make three to four pairs a day if the shoe doesn’t have intricate customization. Those may take an entire day to construct one pair.
John Giddings, who also works in the shop, has a long history as not only a worker but also a patient. “I was a patient in 1960; I was a little boy when I got sick. I was a patient, got discharged and came back to work,” he said. “This place means a lot to me, oh yes.”
Giddings has worked at the center for 32 years, but he’s got his eye on slowing down. “I’ve been holding the place here until we get a new man,” he said. “I hope this one here, Martin, will work out. I brought a young man so maybe I can retire!”
Joey Butler is a multimedia producer/editor for United Methodist Communications.
by Steve | Jan 12, 2018 | January-February 2018, Magazine, Magazine Articles
By Max Wilkins-
One of the great joys of leading TMS Global has been to witness local congregations come alive as they grasp the reality that mission is the reason the church exists and get serious about mobilizing for that mission. It usually happens when our ministry coaches a local church through a Global Impact Celebration about the imperative of mission mobilization. As our denomination finds itself at a crossroads, mobilizing our congregations for mission is a major component for restarting the Wesleyan movement that has had such a historic impact on our world.
If the Methodist movement was seeded in the hearts of John and Charles Wesley, and germinated in the Oxford Holy Club, it was undeniably born in The New Room. It was in Bristol, England in 1739 that a couple of disparate, small “societies” merged under the organization and leadership of John Wesley, constructed a building to house their ministry, and began to grow exponentially into the Wesleyan revival that would sweep England and the world.
Although New Room was often called a “chapel” during the early days of the Wesleyan revival, it was not a church. John Wesley intended that the people called Methodist would continue to worship in established Anglican churches and cathedrals. Indeed, he forbade the scheduling of any activities at New Room during the hours of scheduled Anglican worship services. Further, early Methodists were encouraged to regularly receive the sacraments, but were required to visit the established churches and cathedrals to do so.
Although New Room hosted a lot of preaching and Bible teaching and hymn singing, it was not primarily a place of worship. In fact there were only a few moveable benches for seating for the large crowds who gathered there. This was because New Room was principally a mission center. Most of each day, seven days a week, the space was used as a medical dispensary, a school room, and a feeding place for the desperately poor people of Bristol.
When teaching and prayer did take place at New Room it was primarily about encouraging and empowering the believers to engage in mission with the people of Bristol and the surrounding communities. Most of the evangelism was occurring at the open air preaching missions that the Wesleys conducted daily at the prisons, the mines, and the docks. These first Methodists were encouraged and expected to visit Newgate Prison daily. They were taught to minister to the sick, the destitute, and the uneducated, providing both spiritual nourishment through prayer and the word, and physical aid through food, clothing, medical care, and education. In short, New Room was not a church – it was the Church, a mission center and a missionary sending agency.
The idea of Methodist “band” meetings (specialized small groups) was also born at New Room. Ironically, the band meeting idea was taken from the Moravians, who had already been practicing it for years. Yet the Moravians during this time were struggling to grow, while the Methodists flourished. The difference was that the Moravians were not interested in engaging the world in mission. They were highly critical of Wesley’s insistence that his people engage in works of mercy and piety and they opposed his open air preaching.
Wesley took the church to the streets, both in word and deed, and the result was a changed world. He understood that mission is the reason the church exists, and at The New Room, he demonstrated the importance of that truth to the world.
E. Stanley Jones, the great Methodist missionary to India, is reported to have said, “When the tide of mission rolls in, all the ships in the harbor will rise.” John Wesley certainly found that to be true, when the personal piety of those early Methodist band members was channeled by The New Room into mission engagement. And we at TMS Global are finding this truth still valid today as we see churches mobilized to join Jesus in his mission. Perhaps once again reengaging with the mission will be the key that relaunches the movement and facilitates revival. That is my prayer.
Max Wilkins is the president of TMS Global (tms-global.org).
by Steve | Jan 12, 2018 | January-February 2018, Magazine, Magazine Articles
By B.J. Funk-
How well do you know the people in your pew? What lonely thoughts are they hiding behind their Sunday smile? What hurts are they keeping a secret?
With so much negative news happening in our world, our church recently started a “Surprise Someone” campaign. It came about because one of our members posted a lovely note on her FaceBook page. The note, attached to a gift card to a local fast food restaurant, was from a stranger saying, “I wanted to bless you today. From one stranger to another.” We challenged our folks to spread kindness to a stranger by doing something nice for someone they don’t know. It sounds like a simple thing, but with all of us so tired of bad news, why not give good news a try.
As you sit in your church pew this Sunday morning, your heartache might be different from another’s heartache, but pain understands pain. Pain also understands a smile, a kind note, and a sympathetic listening ear. For Christians, much of our help comes from a concentrated effort to remain glued to the Word of God and to prayer, and to remember a Bible verse like Romans 8:31: “…if God is for us, who can be against us?” Or Deuteronomy 31:6: “Do not be afraid or terrified because of them, for the Lord your God goes with you.”
It is also essential for us to interact with other Christians, to gain encouragement from time together and to be good listeners. You and I can be that one good friend to someone who feels lost. Loneliness may come about through losing a loved one, losing a job or just the feeling of losing at life in general. Ernest Hemingway said, “We are all broken. That’s how the light gets in.”
At the end of “Camelot,” King Arthur’s ideal world is falling apart. He is losing. The onlooker watches with sadness as his world crumbles. A young boy comes to him, and as King Arthur knights him, he feels a new surge of energy. One of his companions yells out to King Arthur, “What is that all about?”
King Arthur, with new determination and resolve, answers back, “One of what we all are. Less than a drop in the great blue ocean of the silent sea. But it seems that some of them do sparkle. Yes some of them sparkle!” Camelot lost now welcomes a new hope.
To think that you and I are less than just a drop in the ocean is a downer. But, to think that our drop might sparkle lifts us up above the loneliness and pain of our lives and gives us new hope.
I found five rules for life that have the potential of bringing hope to your loneliness. From an anonymous post, (1) Make peace with your past so it won’t disturb your present. (2) What other people think of you is none of your business, (3) Time heals almost everything. Give it time. (4) No one is in charge of your happiness except you, and (5) Don’t compare your life to others and don’t judge them. You have no idea what their journey is all about.
When loneliness stops to visit me, I think of my late mother and how she believed in me. She stood behind me with every victory and beside me at each defeat. It was like every morning when I awoke, she created a protective bubble of security that propelled me into my classes and social activities. With each breath, I heard, “I know you can do it,” and with each exhale I heard, “See I told you that you could.”
Because of her I somehow got the message that I was created for more than just a mediocre existence, for more than just a drop in the ocean. I was created to fulfill my God-ordained purpose. Within that understanding, I simply cannot allow loneliness to stay in the driver’s seat.
Nor can you. Keep reaching, keep trying, and keep loving. Robert Frost said, “In three words I can sum up everything I’ve learned about life: It goes on.”
Be the drop that sparkles.
by Steve | Jan 12, 2018 | January-February 2018, Magazine, Magazine Articles
By Thomas 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 “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 “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 “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.
Some in our church want to settle the question of which theological road is correct and which is wrong. They want to line up the Scriptures that support each road and have an exegetical face-off. Whichever side “wins” the face-off should set the position of The United Methodist Church, and those who disagree should either change their view or leave the church.
Some evangelicals question whether those following the second road are acknowledging the authority of Scripture at all, or are merely paying it lip service while essentially allowing aspects of “experience” and “reason” to be their ultimate authority. Some progressives believe that those following the first road are fundamentalists, hide-bound to tradition and resistant to new insights they believe are provided by science. They worry that maintaining the church’s current stance is hurting the church’s ability to attract new, younger disciples and “neglect[s] the more important matters of the law — justice, mercy and faithfulness” (Matthew 23:23).
Both sides believe they are being biblically faithful. Both sides can marshal exegetical arguments in their favor. As an evangelical United Methodist, I believe that the conservative interpretation of Scripture on these matters is more persuasive, historically faithful, and far superior, but that does not convince my progressive friends to change their minds.
Unfortunately, there is not a good way to settle this fundamental disagreement, which is why we are in the mess we are. Methodism does not have a pope or any kind of church magisterium to declare authoritatively what the correct understanding of Scripture is on these matters. The closest we have is a General Conference, which could change its mind every four years. This does not lead to certainty or closure. Instead, we have the quadrennial battles for the hearts and minds of General Conference delegates, to get them to vote in a way that reflects the position we agree with. And if we lose, there is always next time — a recipe for continual infighting.
Dr. David F. Watson, academic dean at United Theological Seminary, questions whether it is even possible to have unity when our process for making decisions as a whole church breaks down. “When there is disagreement, we have methods of resolution,” he writes in a blog entry entitled “Let’s Make a Deal, #UMC Style.” “In fact, every church has methods of resolving disagreement because, without these, unity is impossible. Our decision-making processes in the church, our ways of resolving disagreement, are instruments of unity. Once we abandon these instruments unity becomes impossible” (emphasis original).
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.
I have come to believe that the fighting in our church is hurting our mission and damaging the church. It is diluting the impact of the church on our culture, which we are committed to trying to transform. How many people will choose not to follow Jesus because they see the church divided and mistreating one another? Would it not be better to find a way to create the space needed for those who follow different roads to engage in ministry according to their convictions without hurting those with whom they disagree? That leads us to the second divergence envisioned in the options presented.
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, depart, or change their minds to embrace a progressive understanding.
In his blog, Dr. Watson points out how the potential separation would affect the United Methodists outside the U.S. in the central conferences. “The unfortunate central conferences would find themselves in a very difficult position under this scenario. They could go with the conservatives, with whom they tend to have more theological agreement, but will the conservatives form a new denomination? What will it look like? Will they continue the same level of central conference support? There are many unknowns here. Alternatively, the central conferences could stay with the main branch of the denomination, now weakened by the conservative exodus, perhaps unable to provide the same level of support as before, and declining at an accelerated rate.”
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.
Again, Watson adds some helpful critique: “With some modifications, this [third] sketch might work. I do have some concerns, though. For example, we can probably agree upon shared services, but shared doctrine? I have never been comfortable with the claim that ‘there is only one thing that divides us.’ It is simply not true. All manner of doctrinal expression has found its way into churches, seminaries, and even into the writings of bishops. Are we united in doctrine? Perhaps on paper we are. In practice, we are most certainly not.”
Watson continues: “Further, doctrine and practice cannot be entirely separated from one another. The idea that ‘there is only one thing that divides us’ fails to account for the fact that our ideas about ethical matters are necessarily related to our ideas about doctrinal matters. In other words, questions about human sexuality cannot be separated from doctrines around creation, theological anthropology, and the authority of Scripture.”
Watson concludes: “Finally, a single Council of Bishops will probably not work for conservatives. In many ways, conservatives see the Council of Bishops as the problem. Yes, there are individual bishops who are great leaders, but the Council seems unable or unwilling to hold its own members accountable or provide a coherent vision for our denominational future. From all appearances, doctrine and ethics take a backseat to collegiality and institutional unity.”
Forks in the Road
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.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergy person and vice president of Good News. He also serves on the Commission on a Way Forward.
For further analysis, Google web-based articles: “Let’s Make A Deal, #UMC Style” by Dr. David Watson (davidfwatson.me); “Uniting Methodists Document and the Local Option (Part I)” by Dr. Timothy Tennent (timothytennent.com); and “A Milepost on the Way Forward” by Dr. Chris Ritter (peopleneedjesus.net).
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.
