by Steve | May 25, 2011 | Magazine Articles
The Rev. David Wilkerson, the founding pastor of Times Square Church in New York City, died on April 27 in a car accident in East Texas. His wife, Gwendolyn Wilkerson, was airlifted to a local hospital with injuries.
“Pastor David Wilkerson’s was a life fully given for the glory of God and souls of men,” said a statement from the 8,000-member Times Square Church. “He was greatly loved and he will be greatly missed.”
Times Square Church was founded in 1986 after Wilkerson felt called by God to return to New York City. He describes walking down 42nd Street and being heartbroken over the pimps, prostitutes, drug addicts, runaways, and X-rated movie theaters.
“I saw 9-, 10- and 11-year-old kids bombed on crack cocaine. I walked down 42nd Street and they were selling crack. Len Bias, the famous basketball player, had just died of a crack overdose, and the pusher was yelling, ‘Hey, I’ve got the stuff that killed Len,’” recalled Wilkerson, according to the Times Square Church website.
“I wept and prayed, ‘God, you’ve got to raise up a testimony in this hellish place…The answer was not what I wanted to hear: ‘Well, you know the city. You’ve been here. You do it.’”
In 1963, Wilkerson was launched into worldwide fame as the author of his influential bestselling book, The Cross and the Switchblade, which described his calling in 1958 to New York City and his street ministry with drug addicts and gang members. The book also detailed the conversion of Nicky Cruz, the leader of the New York City gang called the Mau-Maus. Cruz later became an evangelist and bestseller author of Run Baby Run.
The Cross and the Switchblade is ranked No. 32 in Christianity Today’s list of “Top 50 Books That Have Shaped Evangelicals” and has sold 50 million copies in more than 30 languages. In 1970, the book was adapted into a movie starring Pat Boone and Erik Estrada.
Wilkerson is also the founder of Teen Challenge, a drug and alcohol recovery program for those struggling with addictions. The ministry is connected to the Assemblies of God denomination. There are 233 locations in the United States and 1,181 international centers, reaching as many as 25,000 people struggling with addiction.
“‘Brother Dave’ was used by God in 1958 to reach out to gang members in New York City. Through that singular act of obedience, tens of thousands of those bound by drug, alcohol and other addictions have found freedom through Jesus Christ,” said Teen Challenge USA, in a statement.
David Wilkerson is survived by his wife and four children.
Good News Media Service
by Steve | May 25, 2011 | Magazine Articles
By B.J. Funk
Have you recently received news about your health or the health of someone you love, and you live daily inside of this frightening revelation? Has a tragedy catapulted you to a new urgency that has the possibility of stripping your finances? Are you stuck on Fear Mountain, moving further up the Slope of Stress toward the Pinnacle of Pressure? Discouragement and depression are a difficult place to abide. You have no anchor to balance you as you move up and down Fear Mountain, but you just hope daily that something will come along to help you. Well, it has.
There is blessed help on the other side of this particular mountain. That something is found in 1 John 4:18: “There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear.” Not the answer you were looking for? Perfect love casts out fear? What exactly is this perfect love John talks about?
Our love for God and God’s love for us can deliver us from tormenting fear. Perfect love is love that is allowed to exert its proper influence on the soul. It delivers the mind from alarms. If we had perfect love, we would be entirely free from all dread in regard to the future. Fear torments us. It is a powerful and painfully distressing emotion. Fear captures us, moves inside, is arrogant enough to actually set up camp on our heart and soul and cause tremendous distress. This is not what God wants for those who believe in and love Him.
As we climb up Fear Mountain, we can take ourselves to the other side of that mountain. Like opposite colors, love is the opposite of fear. Move to the other side and watch how love can push fear out of the driver’s seat. Fear does not have to win. We resolve our fears by focusing on His immeasurable love for us. This is the love that can quiet our fears and calm the raging storms. This is the love that can give us confidence and strength. Is this just available to a select few? Never!
Romans 8:38-39 makes sure this love is for everyone when Paul tells us “I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present or the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
Fear of rejection has hindered people from beginning wonderful relationships, like those who refuse another chance at love after the break-up of a marriage. Fear of failure has kept many from starting a new business. Second Timothy 1:7 tells us that “God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and love and of a sound mind.”
It is estimated that 80 percent of Christians today are oppressed by a spirit of fear. Fear tends to bring us down when we are caught it its strong hold. When we fear something that has not happened, we almost convince and convict ourselves that it will happen. When we dwell on a negative response from the doctor, when we cry, worry and clog up our spiritual arteries so we cannot even receive life-giving strength from God’s love, then what hope do we have that things will turn out okay? We’ve already started living in the negative concerning our problem. God wants us to live in the positive, to expect new faith, to believe in His love in such a way that you are actually moving to the opposite side of Fear Mountain where love resides.
King David gives us good advice when he says in Psalm 27:1, “The Lord is my light and my salvation. Whom shall I fear? The Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?”
Fear is the biggest enemy we have to face. If we can move past the fear of uncertainties, the fear of failure, the fear of rejection, the fear of losing a loved one, then we can reside embraced in a love so dynamic that one cannot understand it unless it is experienced.
Love prompts us to seek others; fear causes us to shrink from others. Fear brings its own punishment to the one who has not tried to live inside of God’s love. It is inconsistent with the gracious design of God to have his followers miserable.
Today, live inside of God’s love and believe in your heart that He can make a difference for you. Determine to get off of Fear Mountain and move to the other side, to Love Mountain. Set up camp and trust God’s love to take you through whatever fears you are facing.
by Steve | May 25, 2011 | Magazine Articles
By Frank Decker
Over the years it has amazed me how, in some countries, the honking of horns can be a source of constant background noise. In many of these countries, it seems as though a tap of the horn simply means “I’m here,” a passive announcement of one’s presence to avoid a collision. In fact, a common slogan on the back of large trucks in India is “Sound horn and proceed,” an audible version of the bumper sticker seen on the back of many trucks in the United States, “If you can’t see my mirrors, I can’t see you.”
While living in West Africa, I was curious about the incessant honking, and I actually went on long walks during which I counted the amount of time between beeps. The longest period of silence I ever observed between honks in our city was 45 seconds.
Honking is a cultural phenomenon, and it makes sense that it is different here in the United States than in places that I would describe as, say, more laid back. Although honking seems less frequent here, I think it largely originates from a different stimulus. Apart from the occasional
“Hey, the light is green” toot one may hear after failing to accelerate immediately after the traffic signal changes, I think that, in general, a high percentage of honking here is rooted in anger, whether it’s the “You have violated my safety zone” honk to someone who moved into the space you were leaving between you and the car in front of you, or the “You idiot, you almost hit me” blast. Honking of this nature can be seen as territorial, because we are letting others know that they have intruded into an area that we had considered ours. (Of course, there are times when, for safety’s sake, we really do need to honk to let people know they are about to hit us.)
Lately I’ve noticed an increase in another sort of “honking” as well—not literally, but nonetheless a sounding of an alarm that our space is being invaded. As more and more people immigrate to our country, I am seeing a number of Christians respond in unfortunate ways to persons from other religious traditions. Rather than seeing the increasing diversity in our culture as an increase in opportunities to share the message and love of Jesus, there seems to be the sounding of a fearful alarm that we will lose our American way of life. A few examples will suffice.
Recently CNN aired a show entitled “Unwelcome: Muslims next door.” It illustrated the extreme anger and misunderstandings surrounding the plans to build a new mosque in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. A number of those interviewed seemed to assume that a Muslim presence indicated the certainty of terrorist activity (when, in fact, the only actual terrorism that had occurred up to that point was the setting on fire of construction equipment on the site).
In a large church near my home in Georgia, a conference was recently held touting to provide training for engagement in the “worldview war,” and in fact dubbed itself as a biblical worldview conference. Some of the topics addressed were: “Why it is impossible for Christians and Muslims to find common ground” and “The danger and rise of ecumenicalism.” This conference fomented fear and distrust rather than love and respect.
In response to the conference in Georgia, a friend who directs a multi-national Christian mission organization said that if he had been able to attend, he would have stood up and said, “Can you suggest ways this rally might help me love God with all my heart, and love my neighbors as myself…including even my enemies?” That simple question seems to be lost among the clamor of the current culture wars. It seems to me that in some people’s minds the Prince of Peace is a little more than the guardian of our American way of life.
We do have a choice, however. We can honk and say “Hey, stay out of my space.” Or, we can see our changing circumstances as opportunities to know and understand others and introduce them to Jesus. But it is difficult to do the latter if our primary agenda is the preservation of our lifestyle above all else. The two notions are ultimately incompatible (a theme that has been notably expressed in David Platt’s recent book, Radical.)
There are resources for church leaders who wish to learn and lead others into a responsible, biblical, and peace-loving response to our changing cultural landscape. Abrahamic Alliance International (www.abrahamicalliance.org) is a faith-based ministry uniting Jews, Christians, and Muslims for active peacebuilding and relief of extreme poverty. They are available to conduct church seminars on loving Muslim neighbors, then unite graduates with local Muslims in a collaborative service to the poor, suffering, and marginalized. Another resourcing organization is Trac5, which seeks to raise awareness and give people “a place to breathe and to respect each other.” They also provide leadership training for young leaders, and you can find out more at www.Trac5.org.
I believe that the nature of our honking should be; “I’m here, you’re there, let’s try to understand each other.” Or, at least, “Let’s not run into each other.” But when our honking is loaded with anger, it benefits nobody.
by Steve | May 25, 2011 | Magazine Articles
By Duffy Robbins
I’m occasionally asked whether it’s better to do a Bible study or Sunday school lesson based on a text or a topic? Should we be working through one of the gospels, or should we be surveying the Old Testament? Should we use the curriculum that was sent from the Publishing House or should we just abandon traditional teaching altogether and go uber hipster: turn off the lights, bring in the candles, and just play Nooma videos back to back for two hours?
There are two approaches we can take when we teach the Bible. The following two exercises will help to demonstrate the difference between the two approaches.
1. Take a moment and read through 2 Kings 2:23-24. As you read, jot down the possible topics that are suggested in these two verses. What did you come up with? Here’s the list I came up with:
• Speaking to Build Up,
• Anger-Management,
• Respect for the Elderly,
• Animal Rights,
• Learning to Forgive,
• Bald People, and Why We Should Be Kind to Them.
2. Let’s take one of the topics from the lists above, “Dealing with Anger,” and in the space below, list five Bible passages that teach on that one issue. What did you come up with? Here’s my list:
• Romans 12:17
• Proverbs 15:1
• Mark 3:5
• James 1:19
• Ephesians 4:26-27
These two exercises, back to back, demonstrate very simply the difference between using a textual approach to teaching, and a topical approach to teaching.
When planning a lesson topic, it’s helpful to think in terms of two types of experiences—textual lessons and topical lessons. The difference is simple: with textual lessons, the text suggests the topic (Exercise #1), and with topical studies the topic suggests the text (Exercise #2). Both approaches are good and useful, and although you occasionally hear someone who feels that one is far superior to the other, both approaches have unique advantages and disadvantages.
Advantages to a Textual Approach
• Points students back to the words of Scripture;
• Points youth workers back to the words of Scripture;
• Makes it harder to duck texts that are “inconvenient” or hard to talk about;
• Helps students learn how to feed themselves from Scripture, instead of giving them a diet of ready-made processed talks;
• Offers a more balanced diet of truth—topics are suggested by the text rather than by the whims or hot topics of any one group or youthworker;
• Can get bogged down in more sophisticated theological-textual questions that might just “muddy the water” for a teenager who is asking, “What does God say about…?”
• Can make it more difficult to speak to student’s felt needs (it doesn’t have to). Obviously, there is a point at which the Bible speaks to every aspect of the human condition, but it doesn’t do that in every passage, or even in every book. So, it can feel a little less student-sensitive, a little less responsive to students’ needs.
Advantages to a Topical Approach
• Allows for flexibility. You can adjust and shift topics to meet the needs of the group;
• It’s easier. That doesn’t make it better; but it does require less study, and that’s just a fact;
• It approaches the text the way our students live. They don’t read the Bible to find out what it says, they read the Bible so they can do what it says. Now, obviously, they can’t do what it says without finding out what it says, but again, one approach is directed more towards concepts and one is directed more towards the concrete;
• Allows your teaching to be more needs-based;
• Requires a little less work to make it relevant because with topical, the topics are chosen because of their relevance. Whereas with a textual approach, the topics come to us because they are there in the text;
• Can develop in our students an appetite for “how-to” Christianity—can reduce all Christian truth down to a “fix it” guide;
• Could end up skipping over truths that might, in time, transform the mind (Romans 12:1), but don’t immediately have relevance for a teenager’s life;
• When we teach from a topical menu that jumps around from topic to topic, it can allow us to avoid hard topics that we don’t feel comfortable or competent to talk about.
Every group has different needs and every teacher has different gifts. Which method fits your situation?
by Steve | May 25, 2011 | Magazine Articles
By Wesley Putnam
Sunday, February 27, was the day when University United Methodist Church in Austin, Texas, was going to vote on becoming a Reconciling Congregation. The vote had been heralded three months previous through The Daily Texan with the headline: “Methodists to vote on GLBT inclusion.” GLBT is the acronym for “Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender.”
According to its website, Reconciling Ministries Network (RMN) is committed to overturning the historic stance of United Methodism’s biblical position on ordination standards, human sexuality, and marriage between a man and a woman. According to its website, “RMN works for full equality in membership, ordination, and marriage for God’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender children.”
One of the primary problems with this vote is that it is clearly forbidden by Decision #871 of the United Methodist Judicial Council: “A local church or any of its organizational units may not identify or label itself as an unofficial body or movement.
“Such identification or labeling is divisive and makes the local church subject to the possibility of being in conflict with the Discipline and doctrines of The United Methodist Church.”
Additionally, Judicial Council Decision #886 has bearing on this matter: “[A]nnual conferences may not legally negate, ignore, or violate provisions of the Discipline with which they disagree, even when the disagreements are based upon conscientious objections to those provisions.”
When it became public that University UM Church was planning this vote, I notified the pastor that he was moving the church in a direction that seemed to be in clear violation of the United Methodist Book of Discipline. He indicated he was determined to continue and had already discussed it with his district superintendent.
I then contacted the office for the District Superintendent in the Austin District, citing the relevant Judicial Council Decisions. I never received a response.
Next, I contacted Bishop Jim Dorff of the Southwest Texas Conference and informed him of the plans of UUMC. In his email response, the bishop assured me that he appreciated my concern but then went on to state his belief that “it is permissible for a congregation to be affiliated with the Reconciling Ministries Network.” He was, apparently, making a distinction between being “affiliated” and “identification or labeling”—explicitly prohibited by Judicial Council rulings. He even stated, “It is often difficult to keep this distinction clear in everyone’s understanding.”
I fail to see the difference. Affiliating with a group is identifying with a group. And Judicial Council Decision #871 simply says that Annual Conferences, local churches, and units within churches (Sunday school classes, UMW groups, etc.) are forbidden to “identify or label” themselves as “an unofficial body or movement.”
The entire point of not labeling your congregation is because it is “divisive and makes the local church subject to the possibility of being in conflict with the Discipline and doctrines of the United Methodist Church,” as the Judicial Council made clear.
Rainbow crosses and pink triangles
After several email exchanges with Bishop Dorff, I decided to attend the vote at University UM Church as an observer. I also attended the morning worship service just before the church conference.
The lovely sanctuary was comfortably full with between 250 and 300 worshipers. The congregation that gathered was multi-generational. I was met by friendly greetings from several members as I made my way to my seat.
I noticed that rainbow crosses and pink triangles were displayed on many lapels.
The pipe organ was belting out a rousing call to worship and the sound reverberated off the ample hardwood surfaces of the room. The atmosphere was celebratory as the congregants anticipated the purpose of this day.
The style of worship was traditional. There was a lot of liturgy and ancient hymns, plus also a couple of more recent songs from the hymnal supplement.
Everything in the service was designed to lead up to this historic vote. Even the children’s sermon was a call to remember that there are many different pieces that make up a puzzle.
“When God’s peace is at work, even though we are going in lots of different directions, God brings us together and gives us God’s love,” the pastor told the children. “To love each other, care for each other, and be reconciled to each other. We want to be with all different kinds of people, not just people just like us,” he said.
The last statement seemed to be directed to the adult congregation more so than it was to the children.
The Rev. John Elford of University UM Church is a tall man with a quiet and conversational speaking style. In remarks sprinkled with humor, he emphasized that UUMC is a “welcoming congregation” and the people there are “learning more and more every day” about all that term means.
Ironically, the Scripture Pastor Elford chose to speak on was “Blessed are the peacemakers”—on a day when he was leading the church to take a divisive action.
I certainly didn’t disagree with everything he said. He spoke of the hard work Jesus calls us to of reconciling the world to God. He said it is not always easy to make peace. Peacemaking can be back-breaking work in which we must trust God’s providence for success.
Pastor Elford said we need not fear as we do this work because evil is being overcome with good. He declared that the forces we are up against are what Paul called “principalities and powers.”
Regrettably, the context of the day infused Pastor Elford’s words with a meaning that differs from the church’s historic proclamation of the gospel. Ultimately, the pastor of University United Methodist Church was challenging his congregation to “make peace” with what God’s Word has declared to be sinful. In this new meaning of things, a person cannot be truly “welcomed” unless his or her behavior is affirmed and even endorsed.
Pastor Elford was calling his church to celebrate behavior that has been prohibited for thousands of years—in both the Old and New Testaments.
Further, he was asking them to violate the spirit of our denominational Book of Discipline and the clear intent of the UM Judicial Council by joining an unofficial group whose statement of purpose is opposed to church law.
The controversy over how the church will treat homosexual behavior has been “front and center” in every General Conference for four decades. The United Methodist response has been consistent, clear, and gracious. We view homosexuals—as we do all people—as being of sacred worth, but we recognize homosexual behavior as being contrary to the teaching of Scripture and the established body of doctrine held by the church. That is our stand.
It is not the prerogative of a pastor or local church to purposely crusade against settled church law, while suggesting that everyone who opposes them (including, by implication, the UM Judicial Council, the General Conference, and every orthodox UM member) is a part of the “principalities and powers” of darkness.
But led by their pastor, and with the district superintendent present, this is precisely what University United Methodist Church did. After the 11 a.m. service, by a vote of 228 to 15, UUMC became affiliated with the Reconciling Ministries Network.
Why this matters
“I can assure you that they will not vote to become a reconciling church,” Bishop Dorff responded to me in a later email. “Their vote will be only whether or not they join the Reconciling Ministries Network.”
Ultimately, University UM Church did both.
The wording of the ballot made it clear that the ruling of the Judicial Council had been violated. By calling itself “a member of RMN” and placing the phrase “A Reconciling Congregation” on its website and other communications, UUMC has identified or labeled itself as an unofficial body or movement.
When this Church Conference was called for, District Superintendent Bobbi Kaye Jones should have ruled the meeting out of order. She did not.
When he was made aware of this action, Bishop Dorff should have upheld and enforced the Judicial Council decisions and the Book of Discipline. He did not.
Why does the action of University UM Church matter? In a word, it’s all about covenant. As an elder in the United Methodist Church, I am in covenant with all other elders, bishops and district superintendents included.
The Discipline defines that covenant in Paragraph 306: “An order is a covenant community within the church to mutually support, care for, and hold accountable its members for the sake of the life and mission of the church” (emphasis added).
This is serious business.
This whole debate began in the 1990s when my home conference in Northwest Texas voted to become a “Confessing Conference.” This action was challenged and the Judicial Council rulings cited above were made. Any church or conference that had declared itself as affiliated with the Confessing Movement or Reconciling Movement were asked to remove any mention of it from their signage and printed materials.
The Confessing Movement churches and conferences complied. But as the Reconciling Ministries Network continues enlisting churches in its cause, the bishops are turning a blind eye.
Because of the vows I took as a member of the order of elders, I am compelled to speak up. I will not be silent.
Wesley Putnam is a full-time United Methodist evangelist and a member of the Northwest Texas Annual Conference. He is the former president of the National Association of United Methodist Evangelists.
by Steve | May 25, 2011 | Magazine Articles
By Liza Kittle
In a historic vote, the Women’s Division Board of Directors voted unanimously to “structurally separate” from the General Board of Global Ministries (GBGM) and become an independent agency within the United Methodist Church. The action took place at its spring semi-annual meeting April 7-11 in Stamford, Connecticut.
While separate, the plan states that the Women’s Division will be “missionally connected to GBGM, and would intentionally release seats at the GBGM Board of Directors…to make it possible for GBGM to add additional representation from Central Conferences within a smaller board.”
Later that week, the Directors of the General Board of Global Ministries affirmed the proposal from the Women’s Division. The directors also voted to reduce their number from 92 to 32—a recommendation from the board’s executive committee.
Key components of the new Women’s Division-GBGM relationship plan include:
• The Women’s Division would have 5 seats on the 32 member GBGM Board of Directors. (Currently, the Women’s Division makes up 30-40 percent of the GBGM Board of Directors as mandated by the Discipline.)
• Women’s Division staff would continue to operate the UM Office at the United Nations on behalf of both GBGM and WD at the Church Center for the UN, which is owned by the WD.
The structural separation plan will now be presented to the 2012 General Conference in legislative form.
Other major organizational changes concerning United Methodist Women were also approved today by the Women’s Division Board of Directors:
• The name “Women’s Division” will be replaced with “United Methodist Women, Inc.,” and the organization will now be classified as an agency of the United Methodist Church.
• The term “unit” will be replaced with “local organization of UMW” and each local organization would organize as they see fit.
• A new Board of Directors of UMW, Inc. will be created with 25 members (20 elected from jurisdictional organizations of UMW and 5 nominated by a special committee to ensure diversity). The current board size is 50 members.
• A UMW Program Advisory Group would be created, made up of 70-80 members, which would meet annually and be responsible for recommending to the Board of Directors major program directions, strategic plans, and plans for Schools of Christian Mission, leadership training, social policies, Reading Program, and Assembly.
The rationale and impetus behind these major structural changes being proposed by the Women’s Division reflect a pro-active position toward impending structural reorganizations across the general church.
Renew prays that these historic changes reflect a willingness by the Women’s Division to adapt to the realities facing the United Methodist Church as a whole, and the organization of United Methodist Women in particular. These realities for UMW include continued dramatic membership loss and revenue decline. (See www.renew-network.org for a current report on UMW membership and financial structure.)
Hopefully, in the midst of promoting flexibility in structure and reaching more women within the UM Church, the Women’s Division will understand the need to embrace other women’s ministry models within the church in addition to United Methodist Women. Building vital congregations means building vital women’s ministry programs across the UM Church.
What remains to be seen is whether these changes mean that the Women’s Division will be supportive of other women’s ministries that are not under the auspices of United Methodist Women, Inc. Although the leadership organization of UMW is advocating flexibility, there has been no indication of support for other ministry models that have a different theological and ministerial focus.
Renew represents women who believe that evangelism is a key component in Christian witness, that maintaining the historic, biblical tenets of Methodism are critical, and that leftist political advocacy doesn’t represent their core values. The feminist theology and leftist political activism of the Women’s Division will never mesh with the more orthodox, conservative leanings of many women within the United Methodist Church. These irreconcilable differences mean that supplemental woman’s ministry vehicles apart from UMW, Inc. will be essential for a thriving and vital denomination.
Liza Kittle is the President of the Renew Network (www.renew-network.org), P.O. Box 16055, Augusta, GA 30919; telephone: 706-364-0166.
