by Steve | Jul 23, 2010 | Magazine Articles
By Rob Renfroe
A reassuring ruling from the Judicial Council was released on November 2, 2009. The Council serves as the supreme court of the United Methodist Church and it functions as a binding interpreter of church law as stated in The Book of Discipline.
At General Conference 2008, roughly half of the members of the Council were up for re-election—the majority of whom were supported by Good News and other renewal groups. They were all were soundly defeated.
Many observers saw this as an orchestrated and successful attempt to replace Council members who had voted in favor of Judicial Council Decision 1032. Decision 1032 determined that Virginia Annual Conference Bishop Charlene Kammerer was wrong when she ruled that the pastor of a church did not possess “the right and responsibility to exercise responsible pastoral judgment in determining who may be received into church membership of a local church.”
The Council of Bishops shortly thereafter issued a statement against the ruling and in support of Bishop Kammerer. Several pro-homosexual special interest groups did the same.
Interested United Methodists have since watched closely to see how the new Council would rule on controversial matters, particularly those regarding human sexuality. The Council was recently given the opportunity to do so as the result of an action taken by the Baltimore-Washington Annual Conference.
At its 2009 gathering, the Baltimore-Washington Annual Conference adopted a statement regarding the practice of homosexuality that differed markedly from the church’s clearly enunciated statement in The Book of Discipline. The statement affirmed by the conference was essentially a minority position advocated by liberals and pro-homosexual advocacy groups at the 2008 General Conference in Fort Worth. It claimed that the United Methodist Church “is divided on the practice of homosexuality,” and it sought to remove from the Discipline the church’s long held position that “the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching.” Baltimore-Washington’s position was rejected by the gathered General Conference delegates.
However, Baltimore-Washington Annual Conference Bishop John Schol imprudently ruled that it was appropriate for his conference to adopt a statement that was in direct conflict with the church’s official position. Indeed, it was in direct conflict with a position reaffirmed by numerous General Conferences.
In a unanimous decision, the Judicial Council reversed Bishop Schol’s ruling. It ruled that annual conferences cannot “articulate a new and different standard of church belief using language that has been specifically rejected by the General Conference” and “may not negate, ignore or violate” the church’s position “even when the disagreements are based upon conscientious objections.”
In other words, we are one church. And it is the General Conference that speaks for the church—not special interest groups, annual conferences, or even bishops. The Judicial Council’s ruling makes clear the inappropriateness of an annual conference’s attempt to claim greater enlightenment, a special revelation, or a more sensitive conscience on a matter clearly addressed by General Conference.
Along with previous rulings that overturned two Western Jurisdiction annual conference votes supporting clergy who perform same-sex marriages, this latest decision gives hope that the current Council will be the fair and impartial interpreter of the Discipline that the United Methodist Church deserves.
We commend the present Council for its good work regarding this most controversial issue and for allowing the General Conference to speak for the church. In doing so, its members are following a tradition of integrity and faithfulness that has served United Methodists well.
Serving as a member of the Judicial Council is one of the most important and taxing positions in the church. Its ruling can either keep us together or tear us apart. Please join me in praying for the members of the Council as they serve Christ and his Church.
Rob Renfroe is the president and publisher of Good News. He is the pastor of adult discipleship at The Woodlands United Methodist Church in The Woodlands, Texas.
by Steve | Jul 23, 2010 | Magazine Articles
By Brett DeHart
How can a small and shrinking church, which no longer matches the demographics of its community, be faithful to the task of making disciples of Jesus Christ?
That is the question many smaller churches across the country face. It is the question that 170-member Austell First United Methodist Church has tackled head-on.
When I arrived a year ago, after having served as an associate minister at a large church, I realized quickly that the attractional model just wasn’t working here. We didn’t have all the bells and whistles of large church worship. We didn’t have the programs that parents expect and want for their children. We didn’t have the resources or money that would give us any hope that we could become a successful attractional church.
When you have been trained that church and making disciples is about attracting people to worship and to programs, it really knocks you for a loop when you realize you are at a church that isn’t successful at that and probably won’t be even with a lot of effort. It’s not that the leaders of Austell First didn’t want to attract new people and grow. But the odds were so stacked against them.
There’s nothing wrong with the attractional model, if you can make it work. But what about all those churches that aren’t and can’t? There’s more than one way to do church. We decided that if people won’t come to us, we’ll go to them.
“Bless Austell” is the name of the church’s vision to live out its mission to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.
Internally, our goal is to have our church and its members focus on blessing our community: being the body of Christ, the hands and feet of Christ in the world. Externally, we hope the campaign will signal to the community that we are ready to serve, to be an asset to this community. We hope others will want to join us in the blessing and eventually in the life of the church.
The church has developed ongoing programs for the community including free aerobics classes Wednesday nights, a free community dinner (Grace Cafe) every Thursday night, and a tuition-free, 5-day-a-week preschool (Feed My Lambs) for lower-income families.
The church is making a real push to engage area schools. It is involved in extensive outreach to its neighbor, Austell Primary School, where the church holds teacher appreciation lunches twice a year, volunteers at the school’s annual Spring Fling, and recently purchased and laid 60 bales of pine straw at the school. As a result of this growing partnership, the school naturally turned to the church to help sixteen families who lost everything when record flooding hit the city in September 2009. In addition, Austell First supports the community food pantry and clothes closet, delivers birthday baskets of goodies to residents at an assisted living home, and volunteers at community events.
While Austell First members are focusing outward, the church is also celebrating the work the Lord is doing inside the church. In the first six months of this year, compared to the first six months of 2008, worship attendance is up 13 percent and giving is up an amazing 27 percent.
The truth is that this church was already making an impact for Christ in this community through outreach. By placing that activity in a theological context with the Bless Austell vision, we can now celebrate the impact we are making for the Kingdom instead of being depressed because we aren’t a big attractional church.
Our community has changed and thus our definition of a successful church has had to change as well.
Brett DeHart is the pastor of Austell First United Methodist Church in Austell, Georgia. This article first appeared in the North Georgia Advocate and is reprinted here by permission.
by Steve | Jul 23, 2010 | Magazine Articles
By Eric LeMaster
Pastors and academics converged in early October at United Methodism’s Duke Divinity School in Durham, North Carolina, to discuss the changing landscape of Christianity in North America and abroad. The convocation raised a call to action to reengage culture domestically, while highlighting the increasing prominence of the Global South in the world communion.
Notable among those speaking were Dr. Philip Jenkins, professor of humanities at Pennsylvania State University and author of numerous books on the growing Global South church, and Os Guinness, Christian scholar and founder of the Trinity Forum. Attending the event were pastors and church leaders from various mainline denominations from the southeast, primarily United Methodists.
Most speakers addressed the need to reevaluate the domestic strategy of mainline churches to engage culture and reverse the contraction of congregations in the West.
Kendra Creasy Dean, founding director for the Princeton Theological Seminary Institute for Youth Ministry, dealt with the loss of young people as a major failing of the church in our times. This failure, she says, is exhibited in the startling minority (only eight percent, according to the National Study of Youth and Religion) of American Christian teenagers who are “highly devoted”—those who are active in their churches, pray independently, etc.
“People who are in economic development know that the most important stimulus you can invest into a developing economy is to invest in young people,” said Dean, relating this to the need to make greater spiritual investments in the coming generation. She also asserted that the best way to develop young people is “to invest in the spiritual formation of the adults that love them best”—whether in the context of youth ministry, the family, or the general congregation. Strong leaders are necessary, she argued, to counteract what she called “Moralistic Therapeutic Deism”—the relativistic, feel-good theology of choice for many church-goers, and a philosophy devoid of a dynamic relationship with Christ.
In a series of sermons concluding each day of the conference, Dallas United Methodist pastor Tyrone Gordon, senior pastor of St. Luke’s “Community” Church reiterated the need to be forward thinking in preaching the gospel. Gordon emphasized the inadequacies of current strategies to engage culture, especially the church’s role in combating social injustice.
“Micah spoke to a culture where the powerful were oppressing the powerless,” Gordon said, drawing from the prophet’s words that true religion is both social and spiritual. “Workers were being exploited. Immigrants were being ignored. The courts were corrupt.…The faces, the corporations, the political players may have changed, but the game sure looks the same.”
“Justice is lacking in our nation, and sometimes the worst perpetrator of injustice by silence is the church,” Gordon admonished. “We have bought into a gospel of prosperity that diminishes suffering, sacrifice, commitment, and surrender. We’ve been just naming it and claiming it, and just milking the people for whatever we can get, in the name of the gospel.”
The growth of the Global South.
While congregations in Europe and North America are shriveling, those of the Global South are seeing unprecedented growth and vitality. According to Dr. Philip Jenkins, there are practical reasons for the contraction of North American and European mainline church congregations. The great shift in demographics, a trend which he considers “the most important change in progress in the world today,” can be partly attributed to declining birth rates in Western countries that have predominately Christian traditions—a pattern Jenkins characterized as an “attempt to almost breed [ourselves] out of existence.” This is contrasted with African populations in countries such as Uganda, which is projected to double within the next several decades, and other nations which may see growth on the order of 15 percent or more.
The rapid encroachment of Islam in Europe through immigration and the relative stagnation of church participation also contrast dramatically with the Global South’s Christian expansion through conversions.
Global South Christianity tends to be very conservative by some perspectives, based on their stances on controversial social issues such as human sexuality. Jenkins warned against pinning “the North’s ecclesiastical labels on the South”—our packaged understandings of “conservatism” versus “liberalism”—but this has not prevented some very heated exchanges between the two groups. He quoted one liberal Episcopal activist as saying Africans should “go back to the jungle [they] came from and stop monkeying around with the church.” Equally inflammatory to some are the African leadership’s conservative views on the American Episcopal Church, especially concerning homosexuality, which some Africans equate with a “cancerous mass that must be excised from the body.”
The Christianity of the Global South also seems strikingly different from Western churches in its apocalyptic and supernatural emphases. “If you’re not prepared to take healing [and the supernatural] seriously, be prepared to take a different line of work,” said Jenkins. The secularization of Christianity in the West is far from the reality abroad and we should come to terms with a faith that is overwhelmingly “traditionalist, orthodox, and supernatural” in churches in Africa and South America. However, Jenkins suggested that if we look at Christian history, such a movement is truly a return to form.
Jenkins distanced himself from saying that one paradigm is better than the other—asserting rather that this is what works in the Global South, and that we should come to terms with it without trying to project onto it our domestic church politics. This includes scriptural interpretations that are unique to African, Asian, or South American sensibilities. “There’s so much of Christian history that we should look at in order to realize how many different ways Christianity has manifested itself, while being in the apostolic norm,” he argued. “The more we know about the history—the accurate history—the less we’ll be concerned about the wonderful world that’s opening up before us.”
Cultural challenges in the West.
In his presentation, Dr. Os Guinness maintained that our engagement with culture has been a losing battle, much due to the philosophical paradigm of modernism that Western Christianity helped to create.
Guinness warned of the distortions modernity has imposed on religion, but especially on Christianity. “Modernity has done more damage to the Christian faith than all the Christian persecutors in Christian history,” he said, noting this worldview’s fragmenting effect on individuals in society. “Many people have not only different hats in different places, but different souls. And faith is not compartmentalized.” He further argued that this has caused belief “to become not an authority, but a preference,” in which “the Lordship of Christ is denied.”
Relating this fragmentation of values to the church’s role in the public arena, he warned: “We must choose our stance in public life with care.” The U.S. as a nation has swung from a “privately engaging, [but] publicly irrelevant” faith mid-century to a faith that’s highly public, but privately inadequate. As an example, he cited the 2004 elections in which Catholic hierarchy considered withholding sacraments from members of Congress who were privately pro-life, but publicly pro-choice.
“I personally thank God for the decline of the Religious Right. I’ve attacked it for 30 years,” quipped Guinness, referencing his distaste for the way politicians have often used their religious affiliations to either garner support or direct public policy initiatives. “Politics is downstream from many of the sources of the ideas in our culture. They [public policy leaders] asked politics to do what politics simply can’t do.”
Like Jenkins, Guinness responded to the shift in spiritual gravity from the West to the South with optimism and promise. “The Global South is almost completely pre-modern. So they have yet to face the challenges that have undermined us in the West,” he said, “but their challenge will come to them. And our privilege is to teach them how we have failed.”
Eric LeMaster is a research intern at UMAction in Washington D.C.
by Steve | Jul 23, 2010 | Magazine Articles
By Frank Billman
“My experience at the Lay Witness Mission was amazing! It was the first time I heard stories about how Jesus was working in the lives of people I had gone to church with for 17 years. I was amazed at the transparency and openness that this event created. It felt natural to see everyone singing and hugging each other, which had been missing from our church. It was evident that the Holy Spirit was given freedom to work in our church in ways that we had not ever experienced. My life personally was touched as I watched the congregation come to the altar on Sunday morning and give their life to Jesus either for the first time or to renew their relationship with him. I never saw that happen here before!”
That is a pretty typical testimony from a recent Lay Witness Mission—a ministry that is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year.
The roots of this ministry stretch back to the Rev. Ben Johnson, a Methodist pastor in the Alabama-West Florida Annual Conference and a sought-after revival preacher in the late 1950s. Sensing that his work as an evangelist had grown stale, he started a prayer group. The members grew close to one another as they prayed for Johnson regularly.
Soon after that, he was doing a revival that proved to be difficult. He sent for his prayer group to come and they prayed for him before the service. When he stood to preach, Johnson was moved by God to ask several of the prayer group members to share a witness. It was a God-inspired moment. Those chosen to share were anointed and the congregation was electrified. Hearing lay people talk about what God was doing in their lives stirred the church. Johnson was led by the Spirit to not preach after that; he just gave an altar call. The people rushed forward to kneel and the altar service lasted more than an hour. It was the witness of laypeople rather than the preacher’s sermon that stirred them.
When vital lay witnesses described how they had been loyal to the church program, how they had served in many official capacities, and yet were lacking in a genuine experience of Christ, other lay people could readily identify with them. But their witness did not stop with describing an empty, meaningless Christian life. They went on to relate how their lives were changed through prayer and a personal encounter with Jesus Christ. Each of them shared relevant experiences of how their new life worked on the job, in the home, in the church fellowship, and in community life.
From the first experiment with using laypersons on a mission, several discoveries were made: laypersons listened to other laypersons; laypersons were willing to discuss pointed problems with other laypersons; dialogue resulted in deeper commitment than traditional altar prayer times; the laity and clergy learned to participate as equals in a group and witnessing laypersons both inspired and encouraged others to witness.
From that point on, when Johnson was invited to preach for revival services, he arranged in advance for his prayer group to come with him. During the meetings, he gave them opportunity to share. More pastors urged him to come to their churches. He would preach and intersperse laypeople to witness, but soon he discovered that power was released as the lay people told their stories. Gradually the weekend schedule began to shift and his preaching was minimized and he became more of a moderator. Later he found that these open and honest, prayer-filled laypeople could be effective in leading small groups. Sunday morning altars were filled. Prayer groups were started.
Word spread and soon more invitations were coming in than Johnson could handle, so he chose and nurtured lay coordinators to conduct the missions. What began as a clergy-coordinated event became a lay-coordinated event and the Lay Witness Movement was launched. In 1960, it was incorporated as the Institute of Church Renewal.
Soon the weekend pattern for missions was set. Teams of 15 or 20 laypersons went to a church for a weekend and stayed as guests in homes of the congregation. Often their presence proved to be a blessing in disguise and God ministered to the families where they were staying. The movement was reinforced by prayer. Every time a person got up to witness he or she would call on someone on the team to pray for him or her.
The church would gather with the team for a Friday night dinner, after which there would be spirited chorus singing and sharing by witnesses and small groups. On Saturday morning, coffee fellowships were set up in the homes of the congregation who invited their friends and neighbors to come hear the witnesses share. The church gathered for lunch and they divided to allow female witnesses to share with the women and male witnesses to share with the men.
On Saturday afternoon, the witnesses would go with church members to visit sick and shut-in members. On Saturday evening, there was more singing, sharing, small groups, and an opportunity for the church people to come to commit or recommit their lives to Jesus Christ. On Sunday morning, team members shared in the Sunday school classes and the coordinator spoke in the worship service. Another opportunity for church people to commit or recommit their lives to Christ was given.
A children’s coordinator and youth coordinator along with youth witnesses were brought to work with the kids and young people. Literally thousands of churches were renewed and revitalized and brought to spiritual strength as a result of lay people telling other lay people about their life in Christ.
The Lay Witness Movement became ecumenical and spread to the Episcopalians, the Presbyterians, the Southern Baptists, the Disciples of Christ, and other denominations. The movement also went international, starting with the birthplace of Methodism, Great Britain. Lay Witness Missions have been held in Australia, New Zealand, England, Ireland, Mexico, the Philippines, and other countries around the world. They have also been conducted as district-wide or cluster events involving multiple churches, as well as in prisons, in the stockade at a military base, in retirement centers, and in retreat settings.
During the second decade of its existence, what started as a movement became part of the General Board of Discipleship (GBOD). At the height of the movement in the early 1970s, there were more than 2,400 missions scheduled from Nashville, more than 100,000 team members on the rolls, and 1,200 coordinators.
Since that high point, the Lay Witness Mission entered a period of decline. The decline led the GBOD to discontinue it as one of their local church programs in 2003. Since Aldersgate Renewal Ministries (ARM) had then been an affiliate of the General Board of Discipleship for 26 years, it asked if it could be entrusted with the Lay Witness Mission program. The Board of Discipleship approved the request and we’ve been scheduling missions across the country ever since. Without changing the structure of the weekend, we’ve strengthened the preparation and follow-up materials.
We continue to believe that the Lay Witness Mission is an important, valid tool in bringing renewal to United Methodists and their churches. It follows the biblical pattern of Andrew telling his brother Simon or the woman at the well telling her village about their encounters with Jesus.
Many pastors can testify that a Lay Witness Mission in their past was an important component of their call to full-time ministry. The Board of Discipleship is beginning to offer Lay Witness Mission Team Member Training as an approved Advanced Lay Speaker’s Course. The testimonies coming from missions today demonstrate the continued effectiveness of this evangelism and renewal tool.
From a pastor in Louisiana: “The church gathered for its evaluation on Sunday night and everyone present could not stop talking about how it impacted their lives. It was described as awesome, fantastic, spiritually rewarding, motivating, very moving, and exhilarating. A new small group was formed. A desire for prayer groups and bible study, youth and children ministries will be addressed.”
From lay people at a church in Virginia: “We were spiritually recharged.” “I can’t think of a better way to have spent the weekend.” “I loved being able to share, knowing others share the same struggles.” “The weekend opened us up and brought us closer together. We got to know each other better.”
After 50 years, the Lay Witness Mission continues to prove itself to be effective in local church evangelism, renewal, development of small groups, and initiation of prayer ministries. It has enabled local churches to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.
Frank H. Billman is the director of church relations for Aldersgate Renewal Ministries.
by Steve | Jul 23, 2010 | Magazine Articles
On November 5, 2009, twelve representatives of renewal and reform groups within the United Methodist Church met with the Bishops’ Unity Task Force. The same task force had previously met with a group representing the Reconciling Movement and the Methodist Federation for Social Action (MFSA).
The wide-ranging and forthright discussion focused on matters that threaten the unity of the United Methodist Church. In the March/April issue of Good News, we excerpted a segment of the statement dealing with unity and division within the United Methodist Church that was presented to the Bishops’ Unity Task Force by the renewal and reform group leaders. In this issue, we excerpt the specific concerns of the renewal group leaders surrounding the way General Conference activities are conducted.
Tension points at General Conference and suggestions for improvement
We as pastors, laity, delegates, and renewal and reform group leaders recognize that many administrative hours and great financial resources are required to plan and convene General Conference every four years. We also seek to be good stewards of all God’s resources and to help make this global assembly an efficient and effective time of substantive legislative action through holy conferencing, spiritual renewal, and vision casting for the future.
We present to you some areas of tension with the process of General Conference that we believe hinder the effectiveness, efficiency, and fruitfulness of this historic body.
A. Sufficient time for debate and legislative action.
While we understand that worship is a vital part of General Conference and that some speakers and reports are informative, paragraphs 15 and 16 of the Discipline state that the responsibilities of the Conference are primarily legislative. We believe that sufficient time for debate and action on all the legislation that delegates are charged to address should take precedent over other matters such as special reports, guests, and speeches. This was especially evident at the 2008 General Conference in light of the fact that the conference was shortened by one full day. Some examples of problems associated with time constraints included:
1. Near the end of the 2008 General Conference, many pieces of legislation that had been pulled from the consent calendar were placed back on the consent calendar without time for delegates to know which petitions were affected by this action. Much work goes into getting legislative pieces pulled from consent calendars in order for them to be discussed before the entire body. Suspending this important tool for delegates due to time constraints seems to violate the integrity of the legislative process.
2. Towards the end of the 2008 General Conference, the number of speeches and length of speeches allowed for legislation were shortened due to time constraints, leaving many important pieces of legislation, such as constitutional changes, without proper debate before voting. Only a few minutes of debate were given for important constitutional amendments.
B. Placement of “controversial votes” in the calendar agenda.
We believe that placement of controversial issues on the calendar agenda should be done with great care in order to maximize the number of delegates present at optimal times of the day for attentive and thorough debate.
1. While it is each delegate’s responsibility to be present for all business conducted, it is sometimes difficult for everyone to return on time. It appeared to some delegates and observers that many of the votes on controversial issues took place immediately after a break time or meal recess when the entire body of delegates had not returned to their seats. The intense daily attendance requirements (some 14-16 hours) over eleven continuous days is grueling for anyone, especially international delegates. Calendar placement to ensure maximum participation and attentiveness should be prioritized over celebrations, speeches, and non-essential matters.
2. Arrangements should allow international delegates to remain until the end of General Conference. Some important and controversial legislative issues were scheduled on the last day of conference when many international delegates had already left. Over 100 African delegates missed the votes during the final afternoon on the issue of the church’s continued participation with the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice due to early travel departures. The African delegates, unlike the U.S. churches, could not afford the expense of sending alternates. All delegates should be required to stay for the entire duration of General Conference and special consideration should be given to international delegates to ensure their attendance.
C. Translation concerns for delegates who do not speak English.
1. Delegates who do not speak English should have an equal opportunity to review documents before the start of General Conference. This can only happen if General Conference materials are translated and provided to those delegates in advance, allowing for an adequate amount of time for review.
Financial resources must be provided to ensure accurate and timely translations. Improper translations don’t just create problems for non-English speaking delegates, but for all delegates. If we do not allow time for review of these documents, particularly those related to voting procedures and issues, our actions imply that the opinions and input of our international brothers and sisters is unimportant. It is in the best interest of the United Methodist Church to ensure that every delegate is voting based on a complete understanding and prayerful consideration of the issues presented as well as the procedures followed.
2. Providing translators at all legislative committees as well as general sessions should be a priority. In at least one case during General Conference 2008, one legislative committee had to wait two and a half hours for a translator to arrive.
3. In other cases, some translators were not fluent in the dialects spoken by our delegates. This caused confusion and misunderstanding when words in different dialects had different meanings. The use of double negatives when voting caused much confusion and should be avoided. In some languages, double negatives cancel themselves out, in others, they emphasize meaning, and in all, they are confusing.
4. Prior to voting, non-English speaking delegates should be given the opportunity to ask questions if clarification about issues and procedures is needed. In 2008, there were constant and consistent complaints about translations into certain languages while others went well.
5. Non-English speaking delegates should be equally informed. According to the 2009 Rules of Order, “The Commission shall take the necessary measures to assure full participation of all General Conference delegates including but not limited to providing accommodation for language and physical challenges.”
Protests and violations of the bar of General Conference.
Rule 11: Bar of Conference
“The bar of the conference shall provide for the integrity of the General Conference. It is for delegates, pages, and others who have been granted access to the area for General Conference business as provided through the Rules or through the suspension of the Rules.” Suspension of the rules requires a two-thirds vote of the delegates.
1. Because representatives of our total connection come together only at General Conference, what is done and what is allowed to occur at the conference presents a dramatic statement about the unity of the church—and how those presiding over the conference understand unity and holy conferencing. In the past, protests have been allowed on the floor of General Conference both in session and in recess and these actions have broken the rules and the spirit required for mutual trust and true unity. Allowing anyone on the conference floor without the prior consent of two-thirds of the voting delegates is in direct violation of the rules by which all General Conference delegates agree to abide.
2. When protests that violated General Conference rules were allowed, it gave the impression that those who allowed the protests condoned both the action and the message of the protest. And the message, intended or not, is that the presiding officers of the conference are no longer functioning as non-biased arbiters—but as part of an agenda belonging to a special interest group. The actions that occurred at the last several General Conferences appeared preferential to one group at the expense of the integrity of unity at General Conference.
3. The question remains of who and how the protest was allowed to take place. Certainly, this raises questions of unity, holy conferencing, integrity, and trust of the whole process. Those of us who wished to obey the rules were not offered an opportunity to present an opposing viewpoint.
4. If protests or demonstrations are to be allowed on the floor of General Conference, then the rules should be changed and other groups, including renewal groups, should be allowed equal opportunity to conduct their own “silent witness.” However, the renewal groups have no intention of staging a protest at present as we believe violating the rules of the General Conference are not conducive to holy conferencing. We also don’t desire to usurp the trust of our fellow delegates or desecrate the altar of God. We are asking that no protests be allowed on the conference floor without the authorization from the voting body of General Conference. Even “reserve delegates are to function within the Rules of Procedure of the General Conference (Rules 27 and 31)” and do not have access to the floor except as allowed by rule.
5. Order within the conference facility should be maintained at all times so observers are not distracting delegates from doing the work of General Conference. After the vote was passed to maintain the current language regarding homosexual practice, observers in the stands began singing and shouting so loudly that the delegates at the back of the conference floor couldn’t hear the comments or instructions of the presiding officer. When order cannot be maintained, the rules allow for: “The presiding officer [to] have the right to recess the session of the body at any time at the presiding officer’s discretion and to reconvene at such time as the presiding officer shall announce. Consistent with the spirit of ¶721 of The Book of Discipline, in rare circumstances the presiding officer shall also have the right to stipulate that the session shall reconvene in closed session with only delegates, authorized personnel, and authorized guests permitted to attend such a session following recess (Section VII.E.1.).” We believe the use of these rules would improve the integrity of the conference.
6. Another violation of the bar of the conference was the distribution of a list of endorsements for judicial council elections. The distribution of such materials was a clear breach of the rules of General Conference.
7. All efforts should be made by the presiding officers of General Conference to ensure that holy conferencing, unity, integrity, trust, and rules of order are followed to strengthen the entire legislative process of General Conference. This will help us to fulfill the mission of the church to make disciples of Jesus Christ.
Leadership and comments of Bishops.
Part of our covenanting together for holy conferencing is to follow Robert’s Rules of Order, which calls for the presiding officer to remain unbiased and impartial when facilitating discussions. We very much appreciate the fine work that was done by the bishops who spoke to the conference to not “take sides” or use their position of influence to try to sway the body’s decisions.
However, there were exceptions. Comments that are condescending, scolding, or judgmental to the delegates who uphold the current language in the Discipline simply should not be made by our Episcopal leaders. Elders and deacons in the United Methodist Church are required to vow to God and the United Methodist Church that they “approve of our Church government and polity” and “will support and maintain them” (¶ 330.5d and ¶ 336). We deserve to be treated with the same respect as those who disagree with the church’s stated position.
Influence of some boards and agencies over General Conference.
Many delegates and observers have expressed frustration at how a few of the boards and agencies of the church (particularly the General Board of Church and Society, the General Board of Global Ministries, and the Women’s Division) seem to control much of the legislative process of General Conference, especially at the committee and sub-committee level. Several examples seem to bear this out.
• Women’s Division Orientation for female delegates.
While this orientation for female delegates should be an impartial time of fellowship and general information concerning the process of General Conference, it has been observed that the Women’s Division spends the majority of the time telling the delegates their positions on key votes and also coaching them on getting particular delegates in positions of leadership in committees and sub-committees. These practices are a clear violation of the spirit of holy conferencing, especially when only 15 percent of the women in the UM Church are involved in United Methodist Women (numbers from GCFA data are available). This puts women who are advocating for the establishment of alternative women’s ministries within the UM Church at a clear disadvantage right out of the starting gate of General Conference.
• Unlimited access of board and agency staff during committee meetings.
Many delegates and observers have reported that several staff persons of the boards and agencies routinely sit right at the periphery of committee and sub-committee groups and give unhindered input in legislative discussions. These persons are strategically placed throughout the legislative process, almost guaranteeing the endorsement of petitions authored by their respective board or agency, clearly an unfair advantage to other individuals and groups at General Conference.
• Time spent on the voluminous Book of Resolutions.
In 1960, The Book of Discipline carried only 6 resolutions. A separate Book of Resolutions has been published after every General Conference since the 1968 church merger. It has grown exponentially over the years and become the mouthpiece for political and social advocacy for a few of the boards and agencies of the UM Church. By 1980, there were 221 pages to this book. By 1984, it had doubled to 451 pages. By 2008, we were at 1009 pages! Countless hours are spent at General Conference on the political and social agendas of a few boards and agencies. Their success is staggering and warrants examination.
In the 2008 Book of Resolutions, out of 352 resolutions passed, the origin of these legislative pieces are the Board of Church and Society (31.5 percent), the General Board of Global Ministries (27.6 percent), and the Women’s Division (8.5 percent). These three groups work on many of these resolutions together, so together these three boards are responsible for 67.6 percent of the total Book of Resolutions. The policies, programs, and resolutions of these agencies tend to be politically partisan, theologically “progressive,” and socially liberal. When you add three other boards, which also work closely with these three agencies (General Commission on Christian Unity and Inter-Religious Concerns, the General Commission on Religion and Race, and the General Commission on the Status of Women), these six groups are responsible for 79.5 percent of the entire volume. Resolutions authored by individuals and conferences have a successful passage rate of only 7.4 percent each. There is only one resolution authored by a local church. (A complete report of this statistical analysis is available.)
Perhaps limiting the scope and influence of a few boards and agencies over the process of General Conference would enable the church to participate in the legislative outcomes of the conference in a more equitable fashion.
Finally, unity would be greatly helped by a moratorium on the issue of sexuality at General Conference. The renewal groups do not bring up this issue. We would be happy never to discuss it again. Our Discipline holds a gracious and biblical position. The only reason the church is divided on this issue is because various groups repeatedly and passionately try to change the church’s views.
If we bemoan the fact that our time at General Conference is consumed with this issue every four years and that we should “major on the majors” instead of the “minors” that divide us, let us ask those who force this issue upon us at every General Conference, not to insist on dividing us with the promotion of an agenda that the church has rejected for 40 years.
Bishops’ Unity Task Force
Sally Dyck, Chairperson (Minnesota)
Mike Lowry (Central Texas)
Minerva Carcaño (Desert Southwest)
Peter Weaver (New England)
Daniel Arichea (The Philippines)
Joao Machado (Mozambique)
Renewal delegation
William J. Abraham is the Albert Cook Outler Professor of Theology and Wesley Studies and Altshuler Distinquished Teaching Professor at Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas. He is widely known as a theologian, philosopher, and scholar of Methodism, most recently as co-editor of The Oxford Handbook of Methodist Studies (Oxford University Press 2009).
Larry R. Baird is in his seventh year as District Superintendent for the Cornerstone District of the Western New York Conference. He has served on the General Board of Discipleship, the Northeastern Jurisdiction Episcopacy Committee, and New ACT—the body responsible for enabling leaders in four Annual Conferences to create a new upstate New York Conference.
Eddie Fox is one of Methodism’s foremost evangelists. He has been the World Director of Evangelism for the World Methodist Council since 1987. A member of the Holston Annual Conference, Dr. Fox has served as a General Conference delegate on several occasions.
Tom Harrison is in his seventeenth year as the Senior Pastor of the 7,600-member Asbury United Methodist Church in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Dr. Harrison has been a General Conference delegate and alternate. He currently serves as chairperson of the Oklahoma Annual Conference Council on Finance and Administration.
Liza Kittle is a member of Trinity on the Hill United Methodist Church in Augusta, Georgia, and is the current President of the Renew Network, the women’s ministry program arm of Good News.
Tom Lambrecht is an ordained minister in the Wisconsin Annual Conference and former Chairperson of the Board of Directors of Good News. He served as the coordinator of the Renewal and Reform Coalition efforts at the 2008 General Conference.
Senator Patricia Miller has been the Executive Director of The Confessing Movement within the United Methodist Church since 1997 and has served as a General Conference delegate from South Indiana five times. She became a State Senator in Indiana in 1983 and continues to serve in that capacity.
Rob Renfroe is the President and Publisher of Good News and previously served as the Chairperson of The Confessing Movement Board of Directors. He is the Pastor of Adult Discipleship at The Woodlands United Methodist Church, north of Houston, Texas.
Chuck Savage is the Senior Pastor at Kingswood United Methodist Church in Dunwoody, Georgia. He has been in full-time ministry for sixteen years and was elected as a delegate to the 2008 General Conference. He currently serves on the Board of Trustees of the Board of Church and Society.
Steve Wende is the Senior Pastor of First United Methodist Church of Houston, one of our denomination’s leading congregations. He is a member of the Texas Annual Conference and has served as a General Conference delegate five times.
Alice Wolfe has served as a pastor in the West Ohio Conference for twelve years and is currently serving as Senior Pastor of Anna United Methodist Church in Anna, Ohio. She served as a delegate to the 2008 General Conference and to the North Central Jurisdictional Conference in 2004 and 2008.
Steve Wood is the Senior Pastor of Mount Pisgah United Methodist Church, a 9,000-member congregation in the Atlanta area. He has served as a church planter, the pastor of a multi-ethnic church, and as a delegate to both General Conference and Jurisdictional Conference.
by Steve | Jul 23, 2010 | Magazine Articles
By Liza Kittle
The 2010 Masters Golf Tournament is over and provided a lot of drama as Phil Mickelson won his third green jacket, the coveted prize of the tournament. The Masters, considered by some to be the most prestigious tournament played on the most beautiful course in golf, is held in my hometown of Augusta, Georgia.
Preparation for the event is intense—not only for the Augusta National Golf Club but for the entire community. Everyone cleans up their homes, spruces up their yards, gets out their spring sportswear, and revels in the explosion of activity culminating in one very special week each year. Visitors from all over the world and media personnel converge on the “Garden City” to enjoy the festivities and cover every conceivable angle of the tournament.
This year offered even more attention because it was Tiger Woods’ return to tournament play after the very public incident in November that changed his life forever. A late night car crash, stories of multiple affairs with all the tawdry details, a shattered marriage, and a stay in rehab played out in tabloids and on televisions across the world. The private world of golf’s greatest player had become very public.
Many speculated that Woods chose the Masters for his return to competitive golf because of the tightly controlled security at the event. A Masters badge is one of the most coveted tickets in sports and entrance onto the grounds of the Augusta National is very restricted.
Woods held a press conference after his first practice round and for 40 minutes answered questions about the past five months of his life. Tiger was open and candid while explaining that he had “lost his center and balance,” digressed from the moral teachings of his parents, and felt entitled that somehow he had come to believe he “was above it all.”
Woods described the forgiving and polite response he had received from golf fans and colleagues that day, and promised to move forward with a new respect for the game and the fans. He said that family and faith would take precedence over winning golf championships. Noticeably absent from the crowd during the week was Tiger’s wife Elin and their two children. Tiger Woods would be making his very public debut without his family by his side.
Woods played well, but it was a different family story that ended in victory at the Masters this year. Phil Mickelson played an exceptional tournament, executing some incredible shots, and culminating in his triumphant victory in Augusta. His victory would come after a year of family trauma as both his wife Amy and mother battled breast cancer. Amy and their three children were in Augusta, and were waiting for him near the eighteenth green as Mickelson completed his final round with another birdie putt. Their emotional embrace and tears said it all, evidence of the strong marriage and family that has long characterized the Mickelsons.
The irony of this victory was not lost on the crowd or the press. All the early attention given to Tiger Woods, a great golfer whose poor moral choices led to the breakdown of his marriage and family, was now focused on Phil Mickelson, a great golfer whose devotion and love for his wife and family had led to the pinnacle moment of his career. Marriage and family had trumped infidelity and heartbreak.
Hopefully, we all learned a few lessons from the 2010 Masters. First, our behaviors and choices in life can have dramatic consequences on those around us. Second, true repentance takes time and guidance from the one true God who provides the only path for forgiveness and redemption. And third, marriage and family are gifts from God and are meant to be our anchor in times of suffering, our hope in times of doubt, and our blessings in times of joy. The relationships of marriage and family were beautifully designed by God to mirror the relationships of the Trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—and of the love of Christ for his church.
At Renew, we believe in helping women to have strong marriages and families. This has never been more important as it is in our culture today. Let’s pray that the message of love and devotion in the marriage and family of Phil and Amy Mickelson is seen as a far greater prize than any green jacket, and that troubled marriages can be healed and restored when we put our trust and faith in Jesus Christ, the true Master of our hearts and lives.
Liza Kittle is the President of the Renew Network (www.renewnetwork.org), P.O. Box 16055, Augusta, GA 30919; telephone: 706-364-0166.
