by Steve | Oct 6, 2023 | In the News, Perspective / News
United Methodist Clergy Trends: Fewer, Older –
By Thomas Lambrecht –
Lovett Weems of the Lewis Center for Church Leadership has released his annual report on the state of UM clergy, particularly focusing on the number of young clergy (under age 35). This has been a particular area of concern for the denomination, sparking a number of initiatives designed to increase the number of younger clergy. His report allows us to make a number of observations about the state of United Methodist clergy as of the end of 2022.
Accelerating decline in the number of clergy
The first thing to notice is that the total number of clergy is declining at a faster rate. The number of elders has gone from over 21,500 in 1990 to just over 10,000 in 2023. This decline of over 50 percent has paralleled a similar decline in UM church membership and number of congregations during that same time. In 1990, there were over 8.8 million United Methodists in the U.S., which number has declined to about 5.7 million at the end of 2021. However, the membership drop is only 35 percent in that time, compared to a 53 percent drop in elders, who are the main group of clergy serving as pastors of local churches.
While a much smaller group, deacons also experienced accelerating decline. From a high of over 1,000 deacons in 2019, there are now just over 900. Full-time and part-time licensed local pastors also experienced a faster decline. From a high of nearly 7,500 local pastors in 2020, there are now just over 6,100 just three years later.
There appear to be at least two factors involved in the decline of the total number of clergy. The Covid pandemic saw an uptick in the number of elders leaving. In the ten years before the pandemic, the annual average decline in the number of elders was between 455 and 480. In 2021, however, 839 elders left the ministry, followed by over 600 in 2022. For local pastors, the numbers were increasing or holding steady up through 2020. In 2021, there was a drop of 232, followed by a drop of 323 in 2022. The hardships of the pandemic and ministry challenges during that period may have caused more clergy to retire or leave ministry.
The other factor causing an overall decline in clergy could be denominational conflict and disaffiliation. The number of elders in 2023 was 1,158 fewer, up from 603 the year before. Local pastors experienced 816 fewer in 2023, compared with 323 fewer in 2022. This sudden jump of over 1,000 in the number of clergy leaving UM ministry could reflect pastors who withdrew as their congregations disaffiliated. There were just over 1,800 congregations that disaffiliated in 2022, and a significant number of the clergy serving those churches may have withdrawn. With close to 5,000 congregations disaffiliating in 2023, there will undoubtedly be another significant jump in the clergy decline.
A changing mix of clergy
Another trend that stands out is the shift from mainly elders as pastors of local churches to the inclusion of a significant number of local pastors, who typically do not have seminary degrees and often are second-career pastors. They receive training through yearly classes at a Five-Year Course of Study (which is usually completed in more like seven years). They can receive this training while serving full-time in ministry, rather than taking three or four years away at seminary.
In 1985, local pastors made up just 15 percent of all clergy. That means there were 5.6 elders for every local pastor. In 2023, local pastors made up 38 percent of all clergy. There were therefore 1.6 elders for every local pastor. Our denomination has increasingly relied on local pastors. One reason may be that they are paid less than elders and so more “affordable” for a local church. Or it could be that more of those feeling called into ministry, especially if they are second-career and have a family, are not able or willing to move away to seminary and invest tens of thousands of dollars in a seminary degree when another path for ministry training is available. Local pastors also offer more flexibility to the denomination because they are not guaranteed a job, as elders are.
Gender
Another trend has to do with the growing presence of women elders and local pastors. The report only contains data beginning in 2020 regarding gender, but even in that short period, there has been growth in the percentage of women in ministry.
For elders, the general rule is that older generations have a higher percentage of men. For example, in 2020 elders over age 55 were 69 percent male, while elders under age 35 percent were 62 percent male. But even within each age cohort, the number of women elders has grown over the past three years. In 2020, 31 percent of elders over age 55 were women, while in 2023 it was 34 percent. The growth in the percentage of women over three years was uniformly 3 percentage points in each age cohort.
For licensed local pastors, the trend was the same (growing numbers of women), but the age experience was the opposite. The older age cohorts have a higher percentage of women than the younger age cohorts. In 2020, 36 percent of the local pastors over age 55 were women, while only 24 percent of those under 35 were women. This dramatic difference could be due to life stages, where younger women are forming families and having children, then entering ministry when the children are mostly grown. This could be due to the second-career nature of local pastors. One could speculate that women elders may be prioritizing a ministry career over other factors, such as family. The important point is that women local pastors also grew over the past three years, by 3 to 5 percentage points in each age cohort.
When it comes to deacons, the situation is different. Women make up a disproportionate number of deacons, and that percentage is staying relatively constant. In 2020, women made up 68 to 77 percent of deacons, depending upon age cohort. In 2023, women made up 72 to 76 percent of deacons. Due to the smaller number of deacons, the percentages can fluctuate more from year to year, but there does not appear to be an overall trend one way or the other.
While women make up half of the population and nearly two-thirds of church members, they still are underrepresented in the ministry. The highest percentage of women is 41 percent of elders under age 35 and 40 percent of local pastors over age 55. Deacons, who normally do not serve as pastors of local churches, have a consistently far greater percentage of women.
Age
The primary concern of the Lewis Center report is with the number of people under age 35 in ministry. The current trajectory is declining numbers of young people in ministry in the UM Church.
In 1985, there were over 3,200 elders under age 35, which represented 15 percent of the total. That number declined to 850 in 2005, which was 5 percent of the total. Various initiatives boosted the number of young elders in succeeding years, so that by 2015 there were 986 young elders, which was 7 percent of the total. Then decline set in, and since 2021 each year has represented a record low number of elders under age 35. In 2023, there are only 449 young elders, which is only 4 percent of the total number of elders. It is mind-boggling that the number of young elders has decreased by 85 percent since 1985!
A similar trajectory is apparent for licensed local pastors. The number of young local pastors has grown substantially since 1985 because the number of local pastors has grown substantially during that time. In 1985, there were only 130 local pastors under age 35, which was 3 percent of the total. That number grew to a high of 654 young local pastors in 2020, 9 percent of the total, but it has declined since then. In 2023, there are only 416 local pastors under age 35, which is still 7 percent of the total.
The situation is the same for deacons. Deacons under age 35 reached a high of 124 in 2017-2018, at 12 percent of the total. Since then, the number of young deacons has declined to 74 in 2023, which is 8 percent of the total.
We spoke above about factors influencing the drop in the total number of clergy in the UM Church. These factors undoubtedly influenced the drop in young clergy, as well. But as one can see with the percentage of young clergy dropping, they have been disproportionately affected by decline.
Why would young clergy decline faster than older cohorts? In a private email, Weems hypothesizes that “the issue may not be so much young elders leaving as when young elders age out of the young elder cohort, they are not being replaced with new candidates.” Factors that could account for this are: a tight job market that offers more (and more lucrative) secular job alternatives for young people; uncertainty whether there will be enough churches needing pastors that will provide opportunities for young clergy, especially with the drop in congregations due to disaffiliation; the increasing number of churches that can only afford a part-time pastor; and a reluctance to stake a career on a denomination torn by theological and ecclesiastical conflict. These factors may be discouraging young people from considering ministry in the UM Church. One would hope that, once the disaffiliation wave has passed and the denomination has set its course for the future, there will be more certainty about the need for pastors and the opportunities for ministry. Other mainline denominations have stabilized after their schisms, but they have continued to decline in numbers, meaning there may well be shrinking opportunities for pastors in the UM Church in the decade to come.
The challenges facing the UM Church in the years ahead include “right-sizing” the number of clergy for the churches that will be available. Congregations are increasingly using part-time clergy, meaning there will be need for more linking of churches to share a pastor or using tent-making clergy who don’t derive all their income from the church. At the same time, clergy have to invest in theological training, which leads some clergy to graduate from seminary with huge student debt, which in turn may not be sustainable on a low or part-time salary. (That is another reason why clergy may choose the local pastor route, which is a less expensive alternative to a full seminary degree.)
All denominations face challenges with matching clergy supply and demand. It is a more acute challenge in those denominations that have guaranteed appointments, such as the UM Church. The GM Church in some areas faces the challenge of not enough clergy. Independent congregations may face the same challenge of finding a qualified pastor willing or able to work for what the church can afford to pay. It will be interesting to follow these clergy trends across denominations in the years ahead.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Sep 22, 2023 | In the News, Perspective / News
Divisions in Africa
By Thomas Lambrecht
Recent meetings have clarified a developing divide in Africa between some bishops and other leaders who want to remain in The United Methodist Church and other leaders who are seeing the need to disaffiliate. The question will be: which group is more in sync with the grass roots clergy and laity of the church in Africa. The answer is that it probably varies from one annual conference to another.
Africa Colleges of Bishops
For a number of years, the bishops from the three central conferences of Africa have been meeting as a single college of bishops, even though the Discipline provides for each central conference to have its own college. In recent years, the combined colleges have issued statements that may or may not reflect the viewpoint of all the bishops of Africa.
Following its meeting ending September 7, the African bishops issued a statement regarding where they stand on disaffiliation and regionalization. The main takeaways from the statement are:
- “Notwithstanding the differences in our UMC regarding the issue of human sexuality especially with our stance of traditional and biblical view of marriage, we categorically state that we do not plan to leave The United Methodist Church and will continue to be shepherds of God’s flock in this worldwide denomination.” The statement goes on to pledge that they will “continue to do ministry in our context as traditionalist[s] in Africa.”
- “We support the ongoing discussion for regionalism, which would ensure that Africans would be accommodated in the way and manners in which we want to worship the Lord.” Regionalization is the proposal coming to the 2024 General Conference creating a U.S. region, along with the seven other central conferences outside the U.S. It would enable each region to become mostly self-governing in many areas of church polity.
- “We support the decision by the Council of Bishops to request General Conference sessions in 2026 and 2028. This will be necessary for smooth transitioning as our denomination emerges from the disruptions of COVID-19 pandemic and the aftermath of disaffiliations.” The African bishops seem unaware that the Council of Bishops has asked the Judicial Council to reconsider its requirement that a 2026 General Conference be held.
It is not surprising that some African bishops would declare their intention to remain in the UM Church. After all, it is the UM Church that pays their salaries and benefits, along with providing money for many of the mission projects in their annual conferences.
However, expectations of continuing financial largesse from the general church may be disappointed in the future, due to implementing the proposed 40 percent cut in the denomination’s budget.
Additionally, four of the nine active bishops supporting the “remain” statement are heading into retirement next year. They represent the past of the African church, not necessarily its future.
It is also important to note that three of the 12 active bishops did not support the statement. Bishops Kasap (South Congo), Quire (Liberia), and Yohanna (Nigeria) did not make a commitment to remain in the UM Church. Information coming out of the meeting also indicated that only four or five of the nine remaining bishops actually voted for the statement. The rest were reported to have abstained from the vote and then were listed as approving.
Africa Initiative Statement
Not only was there disunity among the African bishops, but there is also disunity between the majority of African bishops and the Africa Initiative (AI), which is the largest organization of African UM leaders that has worked together for the past ten years to promote traditional, orthodox perspectives on theological issues and to empower African participation in the UM Church. Coincidentally, 40 Africa Initiative leaders also met at the same time as the bishops, but in a different country. Their statement indicates sharp differences with those who would remain in the UM Church.
The one thing both groups agree on is the traditional understanding of marriage and human sexuality. The AI statement reads, “Enlightened by the Word of God, we remain steadfast in our convictions that marriage is between one man and one woman, that sexual intimacy is rightfully shared in that context only, and that clergy and all members of the church should either be celibate in singleness or faithful within a heterosexual marriage.” While the majority of bishops purport to also hold a traditional perspective, there is some question whether that is in fact true. Bishop Wandabula presided at the dedication of a Reconciling Ministries church in Nairobi, Kenya. Bishop Mande Muyombo apologized to progressives meeting in Dallas, Texas, for the role African delegates played in passing the Traditional Plan at the 2019 General Conference.
Far from being lip service, Africa Initiative “invite[s] all delegates to join our efforts to raise the voice of the church in Africa against all attempts to liberalize the UM Church’s sexual ethics and ordination standards at the upcoming General Conference.” They intend to organize the delegates for active opposition to the many proposed changes to UM standards.
The AI statement rejects “the proposed regionalization plan, aimed at silencing the voice of the church in Africa. The effect of that plan would be to compartmentalize sin within the UMC and make the African church complicit in allowing the U.S. church to adopt unscriptural teachings and standards.” Some of the bishops see regionalization as a way to preserve African opposition to the practice of homosexuality within a broad church with varying beliefs and standards. In contrast, the AI leaders see regionalization as an unacceptable compromise that associates the African part of the church with teachings and practices in other parts of the world that are contrary to Scripture.
Given the changing situation in the UM Church due to significant disaffiliation of traditionalists in the U.S., the AI leaders are positioning themselves for disaffiliation on that continent, as well. Their statement points to “the current illegal practices within the church, evidenced by the ongoing conduct of same-sex marriages, ordination of LGBTQ persons, and the election and consecration of self-avowed homosexuals as bishops within the UMC [as] reasons why evangelicals/conservatives rightfully seek disaffiliation from the UMC.”
The AI leaders see as their goal “a free, self-governing, self-supporting, self-propagating and self-theologizing church, that will take its destiny in its own hands. In one spirit, conviction, and purpose, we will commit to preparing our annual conferences for separation from an increasingly progressive UMC that is regrettably leading the denomination to adopt teachings contrary to Scripture and the historic doctrines of the Christian faith.” They envision each annual conference making “the choice of whether or not to remain independent or affiliate with another Methodist denomination, including the Global Methodist Church.”
Until now, the biggest obstacle to the African church moving toward this goal has been the refusal of its bishops to allow African churches to disaffiliate. The AI statement notes, “We decry the injustice that the existing Paragraph 2553 is not being applied in the Central Conferences, despite the specific language in the paragraph making it effective in 2019. This arbitrary decision by some bishops seeks to prevent African United Methodists from exercising the same right of disaffiliation that our American brothers and sisters have.”
“To correct this injustice, and in view of the above strategic plan, the Africa Initiative has proffered two petitions to the 2020 General Conference [meeting in 2024].” Those petitions are:
- A new Paragraph 2553 that provides “a uniform pathway for local church disaffiliation that applies universally across the church.” This paragraph would enable local churches around the world to all use the same process and meet the same requirements for disaffiliation. It would address the inequities imposed by some annual conferences in the U.S., as well as provide for congregations outside the U.S. to disaffiliate, a pathway that has so far been denied them.
- A new Paragraph 576 that would allow annual conferences outside the U.S. to disaffiliate and align with another Wesleyan denomination. This proposal would streamline and shorten the current disaffiliation process for non-U.S. annual conferences that do not want to become autonomous, but rather join another Wesleyan denomination, including the Global Methodist Church.
There is growing African interest in the possibility of disaffiliation, as the AI statement indicates. Given that U.S. traditionalists will no longer be around in significant numbers to thwart the agenda of U.S. progressives, African leaders are seeing the direction that the UM Church is likely to take. Centrists and progressives alike would endorse the recent statement by Mainstream UMC that, “We are committed to removing the harmful language from the Book of Discipline that targets our LGBTQ siblings.” What they see as “harmful language” is simply upholding the clear, gracious, and comprehensive teaching of Scripture and 2,000 years of church history that sexual intimacy belongs only within the framework of marriage between a man and a woman.
It remains to be seen whether the grass roots of the African church are more in sympathy with the perspective of some of their bishops, who desire to remain United Methodist, or with the AI leaders who see disaffiliation as a matter of principle, disconnecting from a church that is abandoning biblical teaching on marriage and human sexuality. It also remains to be seen whether the General Conference will create equitable pathways allowing the African church to make its own decisions, or whether it would seek to keep Africans trapped in the denomination through economic dependency and heavy-handed rules. Time will tell.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Sep 11, 2023 | In the News, Perspective / News
Notes from Africa
By Thomas Lambrecht
As I write this, I am in the middle of a three-day meeting in Nairobi, Kenya, with about 40 leaders of African Methodism. Most are United Methodist, while a few have already joined the Global Methodist Church because they were evicted from the UM Church.
The devotion this morning was led by a pastor from the Democratic Republic of Congo. He talked about the passage of Scripture in I Kings 18 when Elijah confronted the prophets of Baal on the top of Mount Carmel. He illustrated from the passage that those who speak prophetically for God are often viewed by people in authority as “the problem.” When Elijah confronted King Ahab, he addressed Elijah as “you troubler of Israel.” Elijah replied, “I have not made trouble for Israel, but you and your father’s family have. You have abandoned the Lord’s commands and have followed the Baals” (I Kings 18: 16-18).
When people challenge those in authority for speaking or acting contrary to God’s will as outlined in Scripture, the challengers often are put down as the ones causing problems. The story was shared here in the meeting about a pastor who raised questions to the bishop during the annual conference session. The next day, the pastor was removed from his appointment and evicted from the parsonage. At 8 PM the pastor was asking a colleague to borrow his truck because he had to move all his family’s possessions out of the parsonage by midnight and move in with his brother to have a place to live. I turned to Good News president Rob Renfroe, who is also at the meeting with me, and said, “And I thought we had it bad in the U.S.!”
The last Perspective told the stories of an African leader arbitrarily and illegally removed from the Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters and about a U.S. pastor summarily suspended from his church, even though the church’s disaffiliation vote failed. We are grateful for the bishops who have acted with measured wisdom and fairness. Unfortunately, some bishops are increasingly exercising autocratic power in ways never envisioned by the Book of Discipline. They have become a law unto themselves. Stories of punishments and persecution are common in Africa, aimed at traditionalists who are not willing to go along with the One Church Plan agenda of their bishops.
From Small Beginnings
The episode of Elijah on Mount Carmel ended with God bringing rain after three years of drought. God promised Elijah he would bring rain, and Elijah began to pray on the top of Mount Carmel. Periodically, he would send his servant to look for signs of an approaching rain. Time after time, the servant would return, saying, “There is nothing there.” But on the seventh time, the servant reported, “A cloud as small as a man’s hand is rising from the sea” (I Kings 18:41-45). Within a short time, “the sky grew black with clouds, the wind rose, a heavy rain started falling.”
The African leaders here sense the coming of the rain of revival. They believe that, despite the difficulties posed by the ongoing schism in the UM Church, God is bringing spiritual revival to the continent of Africa.
Just over a year ago, the Global Methodist Church officially launched in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Churches there were not allowed to disaffiliate by the bishop. Instead, over the past several years, two of the four bishops have steadily cast out of the church pastors and lay leaders who attempted to promote a traditionalist position. The good news is that, since launching a year ago, there are now over 160 churches that have been planted in homes and other meeting places in the two episcopal areas in DRC where the outcasts are. God is using the hardships to birth a new church that is unfettered by corruption or abuse of power, focusing on the Gospel, evangelism, and serving others in the name of Christ.
Just last month, for the first time, churches successfully disaffiliated in Africa. During the Kenya-Ethiopia Annual Conference meeting, 58 out of 91 churches in Kenya voted to disaffiliate and join the Global Methodist Church. Sixteen more that were planted in the last year have also joined, making for 74 total GM churches now in Kenya. More congregations may join them. You can read more about the details here in the GM Church’s blog.
The African leaders take great hope from these developments. They believe out of small beginnings – a cloud no larger than the size of man’s hand appearing on the horizon – God will bring great revival and rain down his Spirit to quench the spiritual thirst in a dry land.
Neo-colonialism?
Some progressives and centrists are working very hard to marginalize the voices of Africa. They believe the African delegates to General Conference can be persuaded to support the regionalization plan endorsed by the Connectional Table and the Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters. This plan would isolate the various regions of the church from each other, allowing each region – and most especially the U.S. part of the church – to enact its own agenda, unhindered by input from other regions of the church.
However, there is no support for such regionalization among these African leaders who represent the majority of grass-roots United Methodists. Some African bishops are reportedly withholding all information from their people about the conflict in the church, hoping to keep them in ignorance and thereby direct the course of their annual conference without questions or hindrance from their people. Pastors and lay leaders who share information are penalized, keeping others in fear of similar punishment. All of this occurs outside the prescribed processes of the Book of Discipline and contrary to the fair process of church accountability. There is still no way in our Discipline to hold such bishops accountable.
Again, despite persecution and hardship, these African leaders are standing firm. They will not compromise the principles of our faith. They see through the attempts of the bishops to manipulate them. They understand that the point of regionalization is to free the U.S. church from hearing or heeding the traditionalist voices of Africa, which now constitutes a majority of the worldwide United Methodist Church. They continue steadfast in their contention that they cannot remain part of a denomination that goes against Scripture by affirming same-sex marriage and the ordination and consecration of non-celibate gays and lesbians as pastors and bishops of the church.
The bishops have prevented churches outside the U.S. from using Par. 2553 for disaffiliation, claiming it only pertains to churches in the U.S. (Churches that have successfully disaffiliated in Bulgaria, Slovakia, Estonia, and Kenya used other strategies to accomplish their goal.) That is why African leaders have submitted petitions to the 2024 General Conference to reinstitute a revised Par. 2553, as well as a streamlined process for annual conference disaffiliation, both of which would apply to conferences and churches outside the U.S.
Not only does the bishops’ interpretation fly in the face of the actual language of Par. 2553, but it also represents a resurgent neo-colonialism in the way that many U.S. UM leaders treat United Methodists outside the U.S. and particularly in Africa. Their experience of this resurgent neo-colonialism has often been mentioned by African leaders in the meetings here this week.
Many African delegates have been asking for months for the Commission on the General Conference to send them their letters of invitation to General Conference, so the delegates may schedule their interviews to obtain a U.S. visa. Despite repeated requests, many delegates have not received the invitation letters. Time is running short, as some U.S. embassies in African countries are now scheduling visa interviews six to nine months from now. Soon, it will be too late for some African delegates to receive their visas. An unusually high number of African delegates are at risk of not being able to attend General Conference. Perhaps, if African delegates cannot be converted to support regionalization, their presence at General Conference can be compromised, forming just another way to reduce the traditionalist voices and votes from Africa.
The African leaders in this meeting are not discouraged. Despite the obstacles, they see the hand of God working here in Africa, bring people to Christ and multiplying concrete expressions of God’s love to be experienced by thousands. They believe in the power of prayer and in the ability of a wonder-working God to overcome all barriers to bring about the growth of his kingdom. As diverse parts of the Body of Christ, U.S. Christians could use more of that confidence and faith. Judging by the tenor of this meeting and my previous experiences with these anointed leaders, the African church stands to contribute much to the future fruitfulness of global Methodism.
by Steve | Sep 1, 2023 | In the News, Perspective / News
A Collapsing “Big Tent”?
By Thomas Lambrecht
Throughout this season of disaffiliation, many United Methodist bishops and leaders have attempted to convince traditionalists to remain in the denomination. They have assured traditionalists that there is a place for them in the UM Church and that their views would be respected. Some annual conferences have developed a culture of inclusion that enables traditionalists to participate equally. Other annual conferences – not so much.
Two current examples illustrate the eagerness of some bishops and conference leaders to exclude or punish traditionalist leaders.
Traditionalist Leader Removed from Standing Committee
On August 19, Simon Mafunda, a layperson in Zimbabwe, Africa, received an email notifying him that the (East) Africa Central Conference College of Bishops (the five bishops serving in eastern and southern Africa) had removed him from membership on the Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters. Mafunda has been a General Conference delegate and a member of the Standing Committee since 2016. He also served as lay leader of the Zimbabwe East Conference, elected as such by the annual conference members.
Bishop Daniel Wandabula, president of the College of Bishops, alleged in the email that Mafunda no longer represented the interests of the (East) Africa Central Conference because he is serving as the Vice President for Africa Strategy for the Wesleyan Covenant Association. Wandabula gave no specific example of how Mafunda has failed to represent the central conference in his work on the Standing Committee. Mafunda was removed from the committee and a replacement named by the College of Bishops in time for the next meeting of the Standing Committee, which took place the same day Mafunda received the email.
There is no provision in the Book of Discipline allowing a College of Bishops to remove someone from a committee of the church. Mafunda was named to the Standing Committee by the Council of Bishops (all the bishops serving in the denomination) and ratified by vote of the General Conference. The College of Bishops had no official role in naming Mafunda and has no official role to remove him from the committee.
The Standing Committee itself has the authority under Par. 711 “to remove and dismiss at their discretion any member, officer, or employee thereof:
- Who has become incapacitated so as to be unable to perform official duties.
- Who is guilty of immoral conduct or breach of trust.
- Who for any reason is unable to or who fails to perform the duties of the office or for other misconduct that any council, board, committee, or commission may deem sufficient to warrant such dismissal and removal.”
It is notable that the Standing Committee did not take this action to remove Mafunda. They did not find his participation on the committee to be a “breach of trust,” nor did they find him unable to perform his duties on the committee.
The College of Bishops does have the authority to fill a vacancy on the Standing Committee (Par. 712), but they did not have the authority to create the vacancy in order to fill it.
It is surmised that the bishops removed Mafunda from the Standing Committee in order to smooth the way for approval of the petitions for regionalization. Mafunda had been an outspoken opponent of the Christmas Covenant and other regionalization proposals. His removal allowed the Standing Committee to approve the latest version of the regionalization petitions without opposition.
The (East) Africa College of Bishops seems very selective about what they consider the interests of the central conference. They removed a strong traditionalist leader who has been an advocate for the current Book of Discipline. At the same time, they had nothing to say about the fact that Kenya now has two Reconciling Congregations, one of which was personally dedicated by Bishop Wandabula himself. The designating of a congregation as a “Reconciling Congregation” has been illegal under church law since 1999 (Judicial Council Decisions 847 and 871). Yet, Wandabula was allowed to promote something that is illegal, while at the same time also violating church law in removing a member of the Standing Committee.
It seems that the traditionalist position is not welcome in the (East) Africa Central Conference among its leaders.
North Georgia Vindictiveness
North Georgia Conference leaders were already in a questionable position after “pausing” the disaffiliation process for all churches at the end of 2022. Only a court ruling in response to a lawsuit filed by 190 churches forced the conference to reopen the process for disaffiliation. At this point, some 250 churches have voted to disaffiliate in North Georgia.
The First United Methodist Church of LaGrange, Georgia, failed its disaffiliation vote by 13 votes. The conference pulled out all the stops to keep that church in the fold. They sent in the conference chancellor, five former pastors of the congregation, three college presidents of LaGrange College, and others to advocate for the church to remain United Methodist. Despite the pressure, 64 percent of the 535 ballots cast favored disaffiliation. It missed the required two-thirds vote by 13 ballots.
The week after the vote, a prayer meeting was held to promote healing and unity in the congregation. The district superintendent recruited another pastor to attend the prayer meeting and video record it. At the conclusion of the prayer meeting, that pastor verbally and publicly confronted both the senior and associate pastors of LaGrange First, yelling, “If you had any integrity, you would resign from The United Methodist Church.”
The following Sunday, the senior pastor, the Rev. Dr. John Beyers, preached a conciliatory sermon indicating his hope that the church could continue its ministry and that it could be a strong traditionalist voice within the North Georgia Conference. At the same time, nearly 250 members of the church met in a Baptist Church gym to start a new Global Methodist congregation.
This past Sunday, it was announced that Beyers had been suspended by the bishop and conference board of ordained ministry. One of the former LaGrange College presidents was appointed as the interim pastor. In keeping with the suspension, Beyers was forbidden any contact with church members and barred from the church campus.
Highly unusually, all administrative committees of the church were also suspended from meeting. This included the church council, Staff-Parish, Finance, Trustees, and Nominations Committees. All non-essential expenditures of money were also frozen. There is no provision in the Book of Discipline allowing the annual conference to shut down the operation of lawfully elected leaders of a local church, unless the conference has declared “exigent circumstances” and is closing the church. So far, that has not been the case here.
Chris Ritter reports that “Dr. Beyers is a distinguished member of the World Methodist Council, a trustee of the historic Epworth Rectory, and widely respected as a center-right presence in the UMC.” He has served in ministry for 35 fruitful years. Beyers had also recently been hospitalized for a serious medical condition. He serves as a member of the Good News board.
It is unknown what would prompt North Georgia leaders to treat a respected traditionalist leader in such a callous way, or what would justify the conference’s illegal and heavy-handed attempt to wrest control of a local church away from its elected leaders, especially in a church where the conference won the vote! The church is remaining United Methodist, and there is nothing its traditionalist members could do about that. Yet the conference still came down hard on that congregation.
The interim appointed pastor, The Rev. Dr. Stuart Gulley, had advocated for the congregation to remain UM by stating, “Ten years from now, I fully expect that positions on homosexuality, like with slavery a century ago and women’s ordination over a half century ago, will have evolved to the point that few people will hold that homosexuality is contrary to biblical teaching.” Gulley certainly reflects the direction conference leaders want to take the church in North Georgia. Based on the conference’s actions, it appears there is no longer any room for a traditionalist voice in that conference.
In her announcement of Beyers’ suspension, the church’s Staff-Parish Relations Committee chair said, “Doctor Gulley is prepared to lead you, in his own words, on ‘the right side of history.’ But as for me and my household, we shall serve the Lord.” She then walked out of the service, accompanied by about a dozen other members.
Sadly, power plays by bishops and annual conference leaders will make many traditionalists believe they, too, have no longer any place in the UM Church. It makes one question whether the “Big Tent” approach to Methodism is sustainable.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and vice president of Good News. Image: Shutterstock.
by Steve | Aug 29, 2023 | In the News, Perspective / News
Contrasting Views of Scripture
By Thomas Lambrecht
The essence of the conflict currently roiling The United Methodist Church is a disagreement over the teaching and authority of Scripture. This disagreement is manifested in the church’s attitude toward same-sex romantic relationships. But the reason that traditionalists are unwilling to compromise on the historic teaching of the church on the definition of marriage and the proper sphere of human sexual expression is that such a compromise seems to us to violate the clear teaching of Scripture. In the progressive view, either Scripture does not mean what it says about these issues, or there is another authority that is higher than Scripture for what Christians should believe and how we should live.
A recent blog post on the progressive United Methodist site, UM Insight (edited by Cynthia Astle), featured a ten-point summary of a progressive view of Scripture. Written by Ashley Anderson, otherwise unidentified in the article, the summary outlines a series of “revelations” in response to her “reading the sacred scriptures of the world’s religions,” as well as “conversations with people who belonged to other faiths.” The points she pens apply to all the various sacred writings of the world’s religions, including Christian Scripture.
All progressives may not share Ashley’s perspective on Scripture. But I have heard and read similar ideas often enough that I believe there is a common viewpoint held by many progressives that aligns with Ashley’s summary. The virtue of Ashley’s summary is that it puts the points in a very clear and succinct way that enables us to contrast this particular progressive view with the traditional understanding of Scripture held by the church through most of its history.
What is Scripture?
The summary begins, “All religious scriptures are the words of humans about God, not God’s words to humans. They were written by humans no holier than you or I” [sic].
This poses the basic question, “Is the Bible the self-revelation of God (God’s Word) or simply a record of what people thought were their experiences with God?” If it is the latter, then the Bible carries only the weight of authority we might give to the advice of a good friend. It certainly would not bear the weight of forming the basis for a whole religious and theological system, let alone being a reliable guide as to how to live and have a relationship with the living God.
The EUB Confession of Faith, one of our doctrinal standards, says this about the Bible, “We believe the Holy Bible, Old and New Testaments, reveals the Word of God so far as it is necessary for our salvation. It is to be received through the Holy Spirit as the true rule and guide for faith and practice.”
Most traditionalists believe the Bible not only reveals the Word of God, but it is the Word of God. Some would go so far as to say the Bible is without error in all that it teaches. Others would allow for inconsequential errors in things like numbers or limited historical data. All would agree that the Bible is the infallible guide to the way of human salvation, including who God is and how we can relate to him in a personal way.
Some traditionalists would say that every word of the Bible was dictated by God. Certainly, there are large chunks of Scripture that purport to quote God’s exact words, including in the law of Moses and in many of the prophets. The Gospels purport to record the words of Jesus. These sections undoubtedly are the exact words of God/Jesus. Many traditionalists would say that the rest of Scripture, while not directly dictated by God, was inspired by God, so that the human authors, working out of their own culture and experience, conveyed the truth from God in the language and idioms they were familiar with.
The key verse traditionalists point to is 2 Timothy 3:16, “All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right.” The early church designated which books are considered part of the Bible. All these 66 books are inspired by God. While their authors may not be perfectly holy, they were used by God as instruments to convey his truth to the world. (And some of them were very holy and righteous people!)
Is the Bible authoritative for how we are to live?
Ashley Anderson’s progressive summary says, “Not all the advice given in scriptures is worth following and not all the rules given in them are worth obeying.”
The UM Confession of Faith says, “[The Bible] is to be received through the Holy Spirit as the true rule and guide for faith and practice.” It goes on to say, “Whatever is not revealed in or established by the Holy Scriptures is not to be made an article of faith nor is it to be taught as essential to salvation.”
Does that mean that every word or command of Scripture is to be obeyed now in our time in the Christian church? No. The real question is, how are we to know which parts of the Bible still apply to us today?
The UM Articles of Religion, which are also part of our doctrinal standards, says, “Although the law given from God by Moses as touching ceremonies and rites doth not bind Christians, nor ought the civil precepts thereof of necessity be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian whatsoever is free from the obedience of the commandments which are called moral.”
The church distinguishes between ceremonies and rites of worship commanded in the Old Testament, civil precepts that governed the nation of Israel, and moral teachings and commandments. The death and resurrection of Jesus made the Old Testament sacrificial system unnecessary. And the church is not a government, so it need not follow the rules laid out for how the national government of Israel was supposed to function in the Old Testament. Jesus himself abrogated the rules about kosher foods (Mark 7:19). Therefore, the church no longer follows the ceremonial, civil, or food laws of the Old Testament. Even so, however, these laws often contain principles that can be instructive for Christians, and we should not just ignore them.
The church does acknowledge the continuing authority of the moral commandments, those teachings that lay out the “principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior,” as the Oxford dictionary puts it. The laws about marriage and human sexuality unquestionably fall into this category.
The point is that individuals are not equipped to go through the Bible and pick and choose which “advice” or “rules” apply to us. The church has established guidelines about which types of teachings are still applicable, and there is a long tradition of how these teachings are to be applied in our lives. Coming to a conclusion about whether a certain teaching is still applicable today is a determination made by the church as a whole, informed by biblical scholarship and theological reasoning. And it has to be rooted in the various categories listed above. The Ten Commandments are still in force!
Is the Bible to be trusted?
Anderson’s progressive summary states, “People who claim to have been chosen by God to give final and definitive messages to humanity should not be trusted, especially with children.” Leaving aside the snarky humor in that point, I guess that leaves Jesus out of the equation.
Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me.” And, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:6, 9). Jesus was pretty clear that he was sent by God the Father to reveal him to humanity. As the writer to the Hebrews says, “Long ago God spoke many times and in many ways through the prophets. And now in these final days, he has spoken to us through his Son. … The Son radiates God’s own glory and expresses the very character of God” (Hebrews 1:1-3). As Paul put it from the ancient Christian hymn, “Christ is the visible image of the invisible God.”
The essence of the Christian faith is that Jesus is the way to the Father (not just one way among many). He teaches and embodies the truth about God and about humanity. He gives us life in the here and now, as well as throughout eternity.
How do we know these things? How do we know what Jesus said? In those hackneyed words, because “the Bible tells me so.” If we do not trust the Bible, there is no way we can trust Jesus. We have no way of reliably knowing Jesus outside the written words of Scripture. The good news is that the Bible has been proven true time after time. Whether it is an archaeological confirmation of some recorded historical detail, or the wisdom of finding salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, the Scriptures are trustworthy.
Ultimately, to not trust the Bible is to instead trust our own wisdom and understanding. It is we who would determine what we believe from the Bible and what we would reject. It is we who would decide what we think God is like, who Jesus is, and how we can please God (if we think we even need to do that!). It becomes the religion of me, instead of the Gospel, the Good News of Jesus Christ that has been proclaimed and lived for 2,000 years and has transformed countless lives and changed the course of human history. In the end, it is to put ourselves in the place of God, making our understanding of God match our own image. Surely, that is the ultimate idolatry.
The progressive tendency to downplay the reliability and authority of the Bible and elevate human wisdom and experience (“follow the science!”) has proven to be a blind alley throughout human history. The contrasting perceptions of Scripture are the real issue at stake in our Methodist separation. This is why most traditionalists believe we are dealing with bedrock issues of faith, not simple disagreements about peripheral issues. It is why it was found necessary to separate from United Methodism, despite the cost and the conflict, and to begin the Global Methodist Church founded explicitly on the foundation of an infallible, trustworthy Bible and a consensual tradition of its interpretation throughout church history.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Aug 11, 2023 | In the News, Perspective / News
Defining the Church
— By Thomas Lambrecht —
As folks consider disaffiliation from The United Methodist Church and engage in foundational work to start the Global Methodist Church, it causes one to consider the question, “What is the church?” Is the church merely a local body of believers? Is the church a denomination? What does it take to be a “viable” church? Does disaffiliation mean a congregation is leaving “the church?”
A recent article by Dr. Kenneth J. Collins, Professor of Historical Theology and Wesley Studies at Asbury Theological Seminary, helps flesh out our understanding of the church from a Wesleyan perspective.
Collins points out that John Wesley, Methodism’s founder, “actually employed two basic frameworks, not one,” when attempting to define the church. Those two frameworks help us look at the concept of church from two different angles.
The Institutional Angle
The first framework comes from the Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles, condensed and adapted by Wesley into our current Articles of Religion. Article XIII says, “The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments duly administered according to Christ’s ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.”
As the article states, this definition focuses on the visible church. It entails things that can be seen and verified. The key marks here are:
- A group of believers in Christ
- The preaching of the pure Word of God – preaching that is based on the Bible, without watering it down or changing it
- The administration of the Sacraments (baptism and Holy Communion) according to the directions given in Scripture
These three marks can apply at any level of the church. A congregation can be “the church.” An annual conference or district can be “the church.” A denomination can be “the church.” All that is necessary is for these three marks to be present.
What is a “congregation of faithful men?” Simply put, it is the presence of believers in Christ in a congregation (male and female). Collins notes, “Later on historians reckoned that this definition of the church, which informed the life of both Anglicanism and Methodism, allowed for the mixed assemblies of sinners and saints, of nominal and real Christians, that Augustine recognized in his own ecclesiology and played out in large national churches such as the Church of England.” In other words, the presence of some unbelievers or nominal Christians in a body does not nullify it being a church. As long as some true believers are present, the body can be considered a church.
Biblical preaching is an essential mark of the church. The preaching of human ideas, however lofty, or teachings that are divorced from Scripture contravene this mark. The consistent lack of biblical preaching in a local body or in a denomination could cause one to suspect it is no longer a Christian church, even if true Christians are present in the congregation.
The proper administration of the Sacraments is also essential. A controversy in 2018 over the worship practices of Glide Memorial Church in San Francisco is one illustration. In an open letter, Bishop Minerva Carcaño states about Glide, “Sunday Celebrations are uplifting concerts, but lack the fundamentals of Christian worship. Baptisms are conducted periodically but in the name of the people rather than from a Christian understanding of Baptism. Holy Communion was done away with some time ago and only introduced back into the life of the congregation this past Spring, but outside of the Celebration gatherings and with much resistance.” The absence of the Sacraments, or the administration of the Sacraments in a faulty manner could cause one to suspect that a body is no longer a Christian church.
The Spiritual Angle
Wesley’s second framework for defining the church is based on the four marks of the church lifted up in the Nicene Creed, articulated by the Second Ecumenical Council in AD 381. It states, “We believe in the one holy catholic and apostolic church.”
These marks are much more subjective and less overtly visible. In fact, Wesley maintains that the invisible universal church consists of all believers in Christ, no matter their denomination or nationality. Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, non-denominational, Pentecostals are all part of the universal church.
The “oneness” or unity of the church does not depend upon any kind of institutional unity. If it did, then the church stopped being a true Christian church in 1054 when the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics separated from each other. Christians residing in different denominations are still part of the one universal church. That means United Methodists in the post-separation era are still part of the universal church of Christ. And the Global Methodist Church (and other independent congregations who have disaffiliated) have not left the church but remain part of the universal church of Christ.
Disaffiliating from or leaving a particular denomination does not mean that one has left the church of Jesus Christ. Our unity is spiritual, rather than institutional. One can experience that unity in ecumenical gatherings where the name of Christ is lifted in worship and preaching. There, all serve the same Lord, regardless of what part of the Body of Christ in which they find their home.
Holiness is another essential mark of the invisible, universal church. Wesley helpfully describes it this way:
The Church is called holy, because it is holy, because every member thereof is holy, though in different degrees. … If the Church, as to the very essence of it, is a body of believers, no man that is not a Christian believer can be a member of it. If this whole body be animated by one spirit, and endued with one faith, and one hope of their calling; then he who has not that spirit, and faith, and hope, is no member of this body. It follows, that not only no common swearer, no Sabbath-breaker, no drunkard, no whoremonger, no thief, no liar, none that lives in any outward sin, but none that is under the power of anger or pride, no lover of the world, in a word, none that is dead to God, can be a member of his Church (Works, 3:55)
But who can judge the holiness of individual members? Who knows our hearts but God? We are all sinners and fall short in some aspects of living a Christ-like life. What “degree” of holiness is necessary in order to be part of the church?
The mistake we make here is trying to make the invisible spiritual universal church line up with the institutional church. The institutional church will never be “pure” in the sense that all its members are holy. To attempt to “weed out” any “unholy” or insufficiently holy members only does damage to the church. Jesus taught about this in the parable of the wheat and the weeds (Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43). When the servants wanted to pull up the weeds that were mingled with the wheat, the owner replied, “No, because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest” (vs. 29-30). It is only at “the end of the age” (vs. 39) when the weeds and wheat will be separated. God, who knows our hearts, is the only one who can separate the wheat from the weeds.
Accountable discipleship is the pathway to holiness, as the Spirit of God works within each one, transforming us into the likeness of Christ. We all ought to be accountable to live up to the ideals set before us in Scripture. Bishops and pastors ought to be accountable for their preaching, teaching, and leadership, as well. But grace and forgiveness are a big part of the discipleship journey. None of us is perfect, nor do we perfectly reflect the image of our Savior in all we do and say. The test of our holiness is our willingness to confess our sins, receive God’s forgiveness, and strive to do better. It is only when we turn our back on God, refusing to acknowledge our sins or receive his forgiveness, that we take the path away from holiness.
Integrating the Two Angles
The key point is that the institutional, visible church is not identical with the invisible, spiritual, universal church. There are members of the institutional church who are not true believers in Christ and are therefore not members of the invisible, universal church. At the same time, the invisible, universal church includes believers from all denominations, nationalities, races, and ethnicities. After all, Jesus was “slaughtered, and [his] blood has ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation” (Revelation 5:9). All these ransomed people belong to the universal church, no matter which part of the institutional church they are members in.
In a garden, there are certain plants, like tomatoes and peas, that need support in order to grow and bear fruit. So, gardeners set up structures like tomato cages or pea towers for these plants to grow upon in order to maximize their fruitfulness. Without these structures, the plants will not be nearly as fruitful.
In the same way, the institutional church is a visible support structure for the invisible, universal church. Different structures can help different parts of the church grow in that part of the garden in which they are planted. If a particular structure or denomination is not serving the purpose of fruitfulness for which it was intended, it can be modified or even abandoned. Only, whatever structures are used, they must contain the seven essential marks outlined above.
This is why some congregations are disaffiliating from the UM Church. They believe the UM Church is abandoning the pure Word of God by affirming behaviors that Scripture warns against. And they believe the UM Church is described by Collins as having “apparently abandoned the universal call to repentance, and therefore to forgiveness and holiness as well” with regard specifically to same-sex relationships and the church’s understanding of marriage.
When some believe the institutional support structures are not fulfilling their purpose of bringing about spiritual fruitfulness in line with the seven marks of the church, they feel justified in exchanging that support structure for a different one that holds more promise of fruitfulness. In doing so, they may be leaving one institutional church for another, but they are not leaving the invisible, universal church. In fact, they are attempting to be even more faithful to that universal church by disaffiliating. Let us pray that the new structures being built will be faithful to the seven marks of the church and yield even greater fruitfulness for the kingdom of God in the years ahead.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and vice president of Good News.
