by Steve | Jul 28, 2023 | In the News, Perspective / News
What the Regionalization Agenda Tells Us about the Future of the UMC, Part 2 —
By Thomas Lambrecht —
In last week’s Perspective, I surveyed a recent article by Mainstream UMC (a centrist advocacy group within The United Methodist Church) outlining the case for the regionalization of the church. This important article advocates for a plan that would set the UM Church in the U.S. as its own regional conference, with wide latitude to “adapt” the Book of Discipline according to the views of U.S. delegates and different from how other regions of the church might position themselves.
Continuing our survey in today’s Perspective, the article gives some hints as to the bigger picture implications of moving forward with the regionalization plan and the conception of the UM Church envisioned by many centrists.
Addressing a Global “Divide”
The Mainstream article portrays the 2019 “Traditional Plan” as being “imposed” upon the church, primarily by delegates from outside the U.S. and especially in Africa. It states, “60 percent of the votes to impose the Traditional Plan on the U.S. church were cast by international delegates. In fact, 80 percent of all non-U.S. delegates and 90 percent of all African delegates voted against two-thirds of the U.S. church on a policy that only affects the practice of ministry in the United States.”
The article presumably makes this claim because it was primarily the U.S. delegates who were agitating to change the denomination’s position and institute the “One Church Plan” that would have allowed same-sex weddings and ordaining partnered gays and lesbians. However, even this portrayal is inaccurate because Germany, Denmark, Norway, and some other Europeans, as well as some in the Philippines favored a change in the church’s policies.
More importantly, this characterization misrepresents the church’s decision-making process. While the “Traditional Plan” is congruent with most African culture, not all African countries outlaw homosexuality. Notably, South Africa has adopted a permissive attitude toward LGBT relationships. Some other countries do not have laws criminalizing same-sex relationships. So the “Traditional Plan” applies just as much to the African church as to the U.S. church.
Furthermore, if the UM Church is truly to be a global church, it must respect the voices of all parts of the global church community. If all are not agreed, how can we walk together (Amos 3:3)? Rather than the African delegates seeking to impose the “Traditional Plan” on the U.S., the Council of Bishops and progressive/centrist UM leaders attempted to impose the “One Church Plan” on the African church. African, European, Filipino, and U.S. traditionalists were not willing to agree to the “One Church Plan.” By their words and actions since 2019, most bishops and progressive/centrist UM leaders have continued to try to impose the “One Church Plan” on the church. They would not take “no” for an answer.
There is no question that there is a global “divide” over these questions. The problem is how to resolve that divide. Progressives/centrists are unwilling to accept the “Traditional Plan.” Most traditionalists, including those in Africa, Europe, and the Philippines, are unwilling to accept the “One Church Plan.” The divide is not geographical, but theological.
Given that neither party is willing to accept the other’s way forward, it seemed that separation was the only viable way to resolve the divide. However, most bishops and many other UM leaders have bent over backwards to prevent separation from occurring outside the U.S., as well as in some conferences in the U.S.
They want to impose “unity” and the “One Church Plan” by making it impossible to disaffiliate. Now they want to impose regionalization as the way to implement the “One Church Plan.”
The Mainstream article seems to envision a future UM Church where it is acceptable to impose a solution on parts of the church that disagree with it, as long as it is the “right” solution. Traditionalists have been willing to make substantial sacrifices in order to resolve the divide through separation. Many progressives/centrists have instead imposed barriers outside the U.S. and in some parts of the U.S. in order to impose the “right” (“One Church Plan/Regionalization”) solution to the divide. Which is more respectful of the consciences and voices of church members and leaders?
Is UM Governance “Undemocratic?”
The Mainstream article makes the claim that the United Methodist system is “quirky” and “not very democratic.” Many centrists envision a need to change the system, but are unclear how they would change it.
Complaints center around several points:
- Almost all voting at General Conference is done by secret ballot (electronic voting).
- In some cultures, particularly in Africa, delegates tend to vote as a block, meaning that some annual conferences vote nearly unanimously for or against particular proposals.
- Lobbying by Good News and other traditionalist groups over the years has somehow distorted democracy in an effort to “prop up the views of a shrinking minority of conservative delegates in the United States.”
The article acknowledges that secret ballot voting in the past has been seen as “help[ing] advance social justice issues in the church.” But now that the General Conference has passed legislation objectionable to progressives and centrists, secret ballots are a problem. It seems the only real reason to do away with secret ballots is to open the delegates to being pressured to vote in line with a centrist/progressive agenda.
The theory of electing General Conference delegates is that they are elected to act according to their best prayerful wisdom. They are trusted to be representative of the opinions of their annual conference. But they are delegated authority to act according to their own conscience (which is why they are called “delegates”). Doing away with secret ballot voting would open a can of worms allowing the kind of pressure politics seen in the secular world to invade the church. It would also favor the promotion of a politically correct agenda via shame and intimidation. That is not how our church should conduct its business.
It is true that some cultures, particularly in Africa, value community solidarity higher than individual opinions. At times, this can result in unhealthy block voting. But on the issues that the Mainstream article focuses on, African delegates are nearly unanimous in their opposition to allowing same-sex marriage and ordination in the church. To decry block voting is to deny that Africans can agree on a particular topic and all vote with a similar mind. It is also to disrespect a culture that manifests different values and priorities than American ones. The article gives no mechanism for doing away with block voting. Again, it seems to want to resort to shame and intimidation to force delegates not to vote in the same way with each other.
Lobbying by caucuses and interest groups within the UM Church is not a new phenomenon. Even the official boards and agencies of the church lobby the delegates. They host meals and briefings to persuade delegates to support agency initiatives and budgets. The Methodist Federation for Social Action has been around since 1907 lobbying for liberal and progressive causes within the church. Lobbying and persuasion are part of the very fabric of democracy. Just because some progressives and centrists do not like the causes that traditionalists lobby for does not mean that all lobbying ought to be ended. Nor is it justification for excluding only traditionalist lobbying, while allowing centrist and progressive lobbying. It is those actions that would be antidemocratic, not lobbying itself.
Follow the Money
Lastly, the Mainstream article critiques the fact that the U.S. part of the church contributes 99 percent of the money to support the functioning of the denomination, but it may in the future have less than 50 percent of the votes. The article asks, “the U.S. church is willing to fund mission and ministry around the world, but why should it fund a governance structure that is actively harming the remaining 80 percent of U.S. churches?”
This is a real issue that any global denomination needs to address. There is financial power for those who have resources. There is political power for those who have votes. But when the financial and political power do not line up, it can cause division in the body.
Part of the solution is for the churches in Africa and the Philippines to become less financially dependent upon the U.S. and Europe. Long-term, the goal needs to be for each part of the church to become financially self-sufficient or self-supporting in its own context. The sharing of financial resources from the U.S. and Europe ought to be tailored to empowering churches in less developed countries, rather than on keeping them dependent.
But it would be unfortunate for the U.S. church to use its financial resources to leverage political power away from the churches outside the U.S. The fact that the U.S. possesses the bulk of the financial resources of the denomination should not give the U.S. the ability to do whatever it wants without the input and agreement of the rest of the church. Otherwise, the church would return to seeing itself with a colonial mentality of a U.S. church with mission outposts overseas.
In a healthy marriage the husband and wife may contribute unequally to the financial resources of the family, but the couple still sees their financial resources as belonging to the couple, rather than to each individually. The same should be true in the church. The financial and non-financial resources of each part of a global church belong to the whole church, not each part separately.
At the same time, the churches outside the U.S. will need to face the reality that the U.S. church will have diminished financial resources to share with the rest of the world. While the U.S. church may have lost over 20 percent of its congregations, the General Council on Finance and Administration believes ultimately the church will see a 40 percent drop in income for the general church. That is reflected in the budget proposed to the 2024 General Conference. After the cash windfall of disaffiliation fees is expended, the U.S. church will not be able to support churches outside the U.S. at the same level as before.
The shifting availability of financial resources and the shift in membership will cause change to happen in the UM denomination. That change could bring about a healthier relationship between financial power and political power, or it could cause a deepening divide between the U.S. church and the financially poorer parts of the church outside the U.S. Using the shift in financial resources as a reason to adopt regionalization could lead to a deepening divide.
Where will this lead?
The Mainstream article states, “Our entire global governance/administrative/ financial structure must change. … the current apparatus is an outdated relic of Western colonialism and is irreparably broken.” The question is what kind of change will happen.
The proposed answer of regionalization only tends to cause further separation between the UM churches in the various parts of the globe. It continues to reflect and enable a U.S. church mainly interested in preserving its own autonomy and self-governance, at the expense of global connection and interrelatedness. The mindset behind many progressive and centrist proponents of regionalization is to create a system where they can ensure that the church makes the “right” decisions and adopts the “right” positions, even if that means disregarding the voices of those outside the U.S. who might disagree. Such an approach would unfortunately trade one sort of colonialism for another.
One wonders why, if having churches outside the U.S. with enough power to thwart the wishes of American progressives and centrists is such a problem, would not the church be better off going the whole way and allowing separation for those who desire it outside the U.S.? Why the intense desire to hang on to churches outside the U.S. that pose such a threat to the U.S. that they must be disenfranchised through a regionalized governance? Let those who agree walk together, and those who disagree walk separately. Anything else ends up being an attempt to impose the will of one part of the church on another part. We have seen how that movie ends.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Jul 25, 2023 | In the News, Perspective / News
What the Regionalization Agenda Tells Us about the Future of the UMC, Part 1 —
By Thomas Lambrecht —
In a recent article, Mainstream UMC (a centrist advocacy group within The United Methodist Church) outlines the case for the regionalization of the church. They consider the article important, calling it “an important baseline and reference point for where we are as a church.” It advocates for a plan that would set the UM Church in the U.S. as its own regional conference, with wide latitude to “adapt” the Book of Discipline according to the views of U.S. delegates and different from how other regions of the church might position themselves.
The most prominent issue motivating the push toward regionalization is differences over the definition of marriage and the ordination of practicing LGBT persons. Regionalization would allow the U.S. and Western Europe to adopt one definition of marriage that would allow same-sex marriage and the ordination of partnered LGBT persons, while Africa and Eastern Europe could maintain the current definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, while continuing to refuse ordination to practicing gays and lesbians. This strategy is seen by some as an attempt to allow the U.S. to have its own way on these issues, while keeping Africa in the United Methodist fold.
Going beyond the individual issues, however, the article’s rhetoric gives some hints as to the bigger picture implications of moving forward with the regionalization plan.
Culture Vs. Scripture
The Mainstream UMC article frames the regionalization proposal as a way to accommodate differences in culture. The article speaks of the ability “to adapt portions of the rules to fit their cultural contexts.” It goes on to say, “If the structure does not change, cultural values will continue to be imposed upon one region of the world by another.” In fact, the word “culture” or “cultural” appears seven times in the article.
Mainstream UMC apparently sees the definition of marriage as a cultural issue. The main reason for adopting a non-traditional view of marriage given in the piece is because, according to the Pew Research Center, “back in 2014 60 percent of U.S. Methodists supported same-sex marriage. They note that ‘Americans’ views about homosexuality have shifted further since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 decision to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide.’”
Most traditionalists, however, see the definition of marriage as a moral and Scriptural issue. Jesus defines marriage in Matthew 19:4-6, quoting Genesis 2:24). Throughout Scripture, marriage is defined as between male and female, and the New Testament clarifies that marriage ought to be monogamous, not polygamous.
The larger implication from this difference of perspective is that the future UM Church is more likely to adapt to the surrounding culture than live differently, no matter what Scripture says. It appears the church may take its cues on moral decisions from what is culturally acceptable, rather than from what the Bible teaches.
This is a dangerous approach to setting moral standards of behavior. Scripture repeatedly urges us not to go along with what a godless world does but to stand against it to live the Jesus way. “Don’t copy the behavior and customs of this world, but let God transform you into a new person by changing the way you think” (Romans 12:2). “So, you must live as God’s obedient children. Don’t slip back into your old ways of living to satisfy your own desires” (I Peter 1:14). “Live clean, innocent lives as children of God, shining like bright lights in a world full of crooked and perverse people” (Philippians 2:15).
Backtracking on Being a Global Church?
The article makes the astounding claim that The United Methodist Church is “not really a global church.” The article says that United Methodists make up “only about 30 percent of all Methodists in the world and just above 50 percent of the Methodist family in the US.” Apparently in Mainstream’s view, because United Methodism does not make up the vast majority of global Methodists, it is not a global church, despite the fact that it has congregations on four continents and dozens of countries.
What Mainstream is arguing is that United Methodism is governed in a different way from many other Methodist bodies in the world. Most other Methodist denominations are country-based or allow the church in each country to be at least somewhat autonomous, governing its own affairs. Uniquely, United Methodism over the years has striven to be a truly global church, where Methodists from many different countries determine together how they will live out the Christian faith.
Now, Mainstream apparently wants to backtrack on that unique commitment. It wants to let each part of the UM Church govern itself, with much less connection and foreclosing the influence of other parts of the global church. Coincidentally, this push for regional autonomy comes at a time when the church in Africa is poised to exercise greater influence on the direction of the UM Church. While the U.S. was in the clear majority and could call the shots, Mainstream had no problem being part of a global church. But now that the U.S. is moving toward being a minority of the General Conference delegates, Mainstream wants to back down from being a global church and adopt a regional autonomy model.
This move toward regional autonomy has the potential of weakening the international connection between various parts of The United Methodist Church. It is the equivalent of the eye saying to the hand, “I don’t need you.” Or the head saying to the feet, “I don’t need you” (I Corinthians 12:21). While it is understandable that Methodists who do not agree on foundational issues might choose to govern themselves separately, it seems to reflect a hypocritical attitude to say, “We want to be all part of the same church, but we don’t want you to influence our decisions on how to be church.”
In any case, the regionalization proposal seems to reflect a renunciation of the attempt for the UM Church to be a global denomination, and it moves the church toward being a confederation of regional or national churches.
A Faulty Understanding of the Globalization of United Methodism
Mainstream UMC portrays the growth of international United Methodism as the result of decisions made by General Conference to “absorb global annual conferences” beginning in the 1990s. However, that is only true of the Cote d’Ivoire Annual Conference in Africa. Its 677,000 members at the time were admitted by the 2004 General Conference for partial representation at the 2008 General Conference and for full representation at the 2012 General Conference.
When the UM Church was formed in 1968, annual conferences outside the U.S. were given the choice of whether to become autonomous Methodist churches or remain in the UM Church. The Board of Global Ministries actively encouraged conferences to choose to be autonomous. All of the annual conferences in Latin America and most in Asia chose that status. The small conferences in Europe and in Africa (at the time) chose to remain United Methodist.
Then what accounts for the shift in the percentage of delegates from being almost entirely U.S. to being more evenly divided? As Mainstream documents, General Conference delegates from outside the U.S. accounted for only 8 percent of the total in 1980, while it has grown to 44 percent today.
The first reason is the decline in U.S. membership. When the UM Church was formed in 1968, it had over 11 million U.S. members. Currently, it has declined to less than 6 million U.S. members even before disaffiliation began. Through disaffiliations, the U.S. church stands to lose an additional 1 million members. If growth of the U.S. church had kept up with the growth in U.S. population over that time, there would now be 18.7 million U.S. members, over 70 percent of total UM membership.
The second reason is the dramatic growth of members in Africa. Just as an illustration, while Cote d’Ivoire had 677,000 members in 2004 when it was received into the UM Church, it now has double that number at 1.2 million. In 2005, the Congo Central Conference had 1.2 million members in 12 annual conferences. It currently has 3.7 million members in 14 annual conferences. Many other African annual conferences have also experienced exponential growth. The UM Church has usually seen that growth as something to celebrate. Mainstream seems to view it as a threat to U.S. dominance and a reason to separate the U.S. as its own regional governing structure.
The third reason for the shifting imbalance is the provision in our Constitution that gives every annual conference at least 2 delegates, one clergy and one lay. This has resulted in an imbalanced representation from Europe and the Philippines. The 20 European annual conferences have 40 delegates, which gives them one vote for every 1,300 members. This is far above the churchwide average of one vote for every 14,500 members. (Note that Mainstream’s chart of delegates dates from the 2016 General Conference. I am using the more recent 2020 numbers.)
Similarly, the Philippines has intentionally taken advantage of this system to multiply the number of annual conferences there. They have 26 annual conferences, giving them 52 delegates, or one vote for every 2,700 members.
Mainstream UMC tends to focus on Africa, however, since their 278 delegates dwarf the 92 other international delegates. The African delegates also tend to vote in a much more uniformly conservative direction, while Europe and the Philippines have been more evenly divided between conservatives and progressives. However, Africa is actually underrepresented for General Conference delegates, at one vote for every 19,000 members. If Africa were fairly represented based only on professing lay membership, it would have 42 percent of the delegates, rather than the 32 percent it currently has.
Mainstream portrays the allocation of delegates at General Conference as a “growing imbalance.” What they really mean is that the U.S. is receiving a shrinking percentage of the delegates. This is hardly an imbalance, but rather reflects the shifting membership in the global UM Church. The overrepresentation of Europe and the Philippines could be corrected by changing the formula allocating at least two delegates per annual conference to two delegates per episcopal area. But the root issue is the long-term and increasing decline of U.S. membership. The only way for the U.S. to maintain its percentage of the General Conference delegates is for the U.S. part of the church to start growing, which it has not done since the 1950s.
Relying on a faulty understanding of the growing globalization of the UM Church leads to “blaming” General Conference decisions for increasing international membership. This in turn leads to searching for a General Conference solution to the shifting representation, namely regionalization. It is a mechanism for the U.S. church to maintain its governance status quo without addressing the root issue of its 55-year membership decline. It is adopting a bureaucratic solution to a missional problem. Such an approach sustains the decades-long denominational ineffectiveness and holds no promise for a quick turnaround to growth in the future UM Church.
This Perspective has observed that, to the extent that Mainstream UMC speaks for the broad center of United Methodism, the future UM Church is likely to adapt to cultural trends, rather than maintain biblical distinctiveness. It is likely to weaken its global nature and connection. And it is unlikely to address its membership decline in the U.S.
Next week’s Perspective will examine more implications of the Mainstream UMC regionalization proposal.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Jun 30, 2023 | In the News, Perspective / News
The Best and Worst of Disaffiliation —
By Thomas Lambrecht —
As we reach the end of the regular annual conference season, the prospect of over 20 percent of United Methodist congregations disaffiliating from the denomination has aroused varying responses, from highly positive and gracious to extremely negative and punitive.
Most annual conferences experienced a relatively low-drama vote on congregations disaffiliating. As far as I know, no additional churches that voted to disaffiliate have been blocked. My own bishop in Wisconsin, Bishop Hee-Soo Jung, took care to create an atmosphere of grace and caring for one another that minimized conflict. The only difficulty came when lay members asked what could be done with the fact that they had not known about the option to disaffiliate until the deadline to start the process had passed. The answer was that, unfortunately, those churches would be unable to pursue disaffiliation at this time.
In other conferences, emotions were more raw. Several annual conferences made changes to their retirement health plans to prevent retired clergy who leave the denomination from participating in retiree health benefits. Some have wondered whether these benefits are earned benefits under federal law that cannot be taken away. In any event, it struck many as a punitive move that lacked grace. The Alabama-West Florida Conference tightened the qualifications for disaffiliation that some observers felt “put a nail in the coffin” for churches still wanting to disaffiliate. A newly-elected delegate to General Conference is quoted as saying in an email, “The days of mass and easy disaffiliation, under false pretenses, are over.” With fewer traditionalist members in most annual conferences, the trend is to become stricter and more punitive in some places.
Nordic-Baltic-Ukraine Area Bishop Christian Alsted, left, and the Rev. Robert Tserenkov, Estonia District superintendent, sign an agreement of mutual recognition between the Northern Europe and Eurasia Central Conference and the Estonia Methodist Church. The 23 United Methodist churches in Estonia are leaving to form the Estonia Methodist Church, which Tserenkov will lead alongside an elected council until the new denomination elects a bishop. Photo courtesy of Bishop Christian Alsted via UM News Service.
The Northern European Example
Contrast that with what happened in the Northern Europe and Eurasia Central Conference. According to a UM News story, in March this year, the conference approved a special process that would allow the local churches in Estonia to exit the denomination this year. The UM Church in Estonia is a district of 23 churches and about 1,500 members. They voted last year to seek disaffiliation from the UM Church due to “deep concerns with the direction they see the denomination heading with regards to homosexuality.”
Annual conferences outside the U.S. can withdraw from the denomination to become an autonomous Methodist church. Such a process, however, takes several years and requires General Conference action to approve it. That is the direction currently being taken by the four annual conferences in Russia and Eurasia, who have also asked to disaffiliate.
However, there is no provision in the Discipline for individual churches or a district outside the U.S. to disaffiliate. The Council of Bishops has taken the position that Par. 2553 allowing individual churches to disaffiliate does not apply outside the U.S.
Reportedly, “under Estonian civil law, the church in Estonia could simply leave with property, [Bishop Christian] Alsted said. But Estonian church members wanted to leave ‘in a peaceful and respectful manner.’”
Accordingly, the Northern Europe and Eurasia Central Conference used its power under the Discipline to “adapt” provisions to its local context to provide a process allowing the Estonian churches to disaffiliate. The process adopted required a two-thirds vote by each Estonian congregation, with at least 30 percent of a church’s professing members present for the vote. It also required the church to be current in apportionment payments but added no costs to that amount.
Bishop Alsted’s attitude toward this process has been gracious and affirming. He is quoted as saying, “Personally, the disaffiliation grieves my heart – I find it unnecessary, and I believe it is a loss to the Methodists in Estonia as well as to the entire UMC. Nevertheless, I respect and honor the decision made by the Estonia Methodist Church, and I stand with my commitment to help all annual conferences, districts and local churches in the Nordic, Baltic, and Ukraine episcopal area to live into a future where they believe they can serve with integrity.”
The bishop’s actions meshed with his words, resulting in a sober, but constructive engagement in the process. Because of the gracious and respectful spirit expressed by all parties to this process, the Estonian Methodists were willing to sign an agreement of mutual recognition between themselves and The UM Church. The agreement states, “Each recognizes in one another that they are constituent members of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church as expressed in the Scriptures, confessed in the Church’s historic creeds, and attested to in our common doctrinal standards.” Reportedly, “the agreement also commits the central conference and [the Estonian Methodist Church] to collaborate wherever possible in mission and ministry and to welcome each other’s members.”
The point here is that Bishop Alsted and the conference leaders did everything they could to make the process respectful and to honor the desires of the Estonian churches. In June, the Estonian district voted by 97 percent to affirm the 23 churches’ decisions to disaffiliate. The Estonian Methodist Church will be an independent church on July 1.
Church Closure and Lawsuit in North Carolina
At the other extreme of graciousness (or lack thereof), Bishop Connie Shelton of the North Carolina Conference handled one church’s request for disaffiliation much differently. The Fifth Avenue UMC of Wilmington formally requested to have a vote on disaffiliation in February of this year, asking the district superintendent to call a charge conference as required by Par. 2553.
The district superintendent informed the congregation that there would be an “informational meeting” on March 26 regarding disaffiliation. When parishioners arrived for the meeting, the bishop and district superintendent informed them that the conference had declared “exigent circumstances” and closed the church, effective March 24, two days before the “informational meeting.” There was no consultation with the church’s members or pastor, and the church was given no recourse. The next day, the conference changed the locks on the church, excluding the members from the building and preventing them from conducting any church activities.
The conference gave two reasons for closing the church:
- The “recent” decline in membership and missional activity of the church, which had 205 members and a weekly attendance of about 20.
- The fact that the congregation initiated the process for disaffiliation.
In their resolution of closure, the conference indicated an interest in using the facility to provide for “the basic needs of unsheltered persons, a gathering space for senior adults and persons with disabilities, space for providing shelter and other assistance following major storms, and a welcoming space for worship and study for one or more new United Methodist faith communities.” It is unknown at this time whether there are any concrete plans or funding in place to implement any of these ministries.
The congregation notes that its attendance fluctuated between 20 and 33 since 2017. (Many churches have experienced a dramatic decline in attendance because of the pandemic shutdown, as well.) The church was keeping up with paying its bills and had enough money in the bank to pay for its disaffiliation expenses. According to published UM data, Fifth Avenue’s 20 worship attendance was higher than 235 of the annual conference’s 785 churches, yet only Fifth Avenue was targeted for closure.
It appears that Bishop Shelton and the North Carolina Conference trustees, district superintendents, and board of building and location were reluctant to see Fifth Avenue’s property leave the denomination and determined to take it over, rather than allow the church to disaffiliate. This is an example of the very top-down, heavy-handed leadership style that prioritizes conference goals and minimizes the self-determination of the local church. The disregard for the faithful, historic congregation, in ministry for 176 years since 1847, is stunning. Their church was closed and taken from them without their knowledge and without any consultation or input from the congregation. There was not even the chance for a closing ceremony or worship service.
The way this was handled displays a marked lack of grace, respect, or honoring of a congregation’s wishes. It is the exact opposite of how the Nordic-Baltic-Ukraine Conference and Bishop Alsted handled their situation. Of course, one big difference in the circumstances is that civil law allowed the Estonian churches to disaffiliate with or without UM approval. North Carolina civil law may or may not redress the injustice done to Fifth Avenue Church. The congregation has just filed suit in North Carolina alleging breach of contract, broken promise, fraud, and collusion. (The facts cited above come from the legal complaint filed by the congregation.)
The disaffiliation process has shown the true colors of people on all sides of the spectrum. Some on all sides of the spectrum have responded with Christlike patience, grace, and respect. On the other hand, some traditionalists have behaved badly and made unsubstantiated or exaggerated claims. Some on both sides have followed deceptive or underhanded strategies. Some centrists and progressives have done all they can to block congregations from disaffiliating, disregarding the wishes of congregants. This has not been Methodism’s finest hour.
It must be remembered that all of this could have been avoided, had the signatories to the Protocol maintained their promised support, and had the General Conference been held in 2022 as envisioned. The amicable separation plan embodied in the Protocol would have allowed a uniform process giving all churches and annual conferences the ability to make conscientious decisions about where they might be most fruitful in ministry. Tens of millions of dollars would have been saved to spend on ministry, rather than squirreled away in a potentially unnecessary pension fund. Dozens of lawsuits would have been avoided. Respect could have been maintained between the UM Church and disaffiliating congregations that could have allowed mutual recognition and potential continuing partnership in ministry.
It must also be reiterated that the denomination holds most of the cards. Local churches are at the mercy of the bishop and annual conference leaders. Those leaders can choose to act graciously and honorably, like Bishop Alsted did – and some have. Or they can choose to act punitively and arrogantly, like the leaders in North Carolina – and some have. As the above examples show, where there is a will, people can usually find a way, whether it is a way to be gracious or a way to be punitive.
Leaders can use their power to build up or tear down. Unfortunately, quite a few U.S. church leaders have used their power to tear down. And the cause of Christ is the worse for it.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Jun 28, 2023 | In the News, Perspective / News
Freedom Fugitives —
By Shannon Vowell
I write on June 19th or “Juneteenth,” the newest federal holiday.
Juneteenth commemorates the day – June 19, 1865 – when news of Union victory and universal emancipation finally reached Galveston, Texas, by way of Maj. Gen. Gordon Granger and 1,800 federal troops.
Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation was, at this point, two and half years old. The Civil War had been over nearly two months; emancipation had been the law of the whole land since April.
But it was news to the enslaved persons of Galveston.
The whole world had changed – their whole world had been liberated – and they had had no idea.
Contemplate that a moment, if you will: People whose entire lives had been held hostage to a demonic lie – that they were less than people, that they could be “owned” by people, that there was no hope of escape – remained hostage to that lie even after it had been repudiated at the cost of 620,000 war dead (including one assassinated President).
Freedom had been hard fought and hard won, at astronomical costs in blood and tears… but they had persisted, week after week, in slavery.
It strikes me that there is a corollary to this tragic paradox in Christianity today.
People whose entire lives are held hostage to various demonic lies – that they are less than other people, that they can be “owned” by their own appetites and emotions, that there is no hope of escape – remain hostage to those lies even though they were repudiated at the cost of the crucified Messiah.
Freedom has been hard fought and hard won, at astronomical costs in blood and tears… but some persist, week after week, in slavery.
Jesus’s words, “it is finished,” were the Emancipation Proclamation for the whole of humanity.
Jesus’s resurrection was the decisive victory on behalf of all of humankind.
But many – too many – live like the enslaved people of Galveston, Texas, lived between April 9, 1865 (the end of the Civil War) and June 19, 1865 (the arrival of the news of that ending):
Our absolute freedom has been won; it is the law of the universe. Our shackles and our despair are completely out of alignment with reality. But we live like we have no idea.
News travelled slowly in 1865. Long distance travel, particularly in the west and the deep south, was dangerous for all kinds of reasons – including lack of water, wild animals, and hostile people armed with effective weaponry.
But Maj. Gen. Gordon Granger and his 1,800 federal troops made the long, hot, dry, hazardous trip to Galveston because the news that they carried was a matter of transcendent importance and urgent application.
They brought truth that literally set people free! Such truth made the challenges of bringing it look negligible by comparison.
That, too, has a Christian corollary: Are those of us who understand we are free willing to face the challenges of bringing that good news to those who are still under the impression they are enslaved?
What challenges do we face, friends?
Mockery, perhaps.
Hostile people armed with effectively weaponized words.
But we have the Living Water – and we have the full armor of God! How can we falter, when Maj. Gen. Gordon Granger and his 1,800 federal troops did not?
Many of us are familiar with the story of Japanese Lieutenant Hiroo Onada.
He was stationed on the island of Lubang during the final months of World War II. After evading capture by American troops, he remained in hiding in the jungle – determined to hold the island for the Emperor, as ordered, and convinced that the war was still in process – for thirty years.
Thirty years.
Declared dead in 1959, Onada finally returned to Japan in 1974. He received a hero’s welcome and was eulogized as recently as 2021 (in the film Onada: 10,000 Nights in the Jungle).
My guess is that he would trade all the attention and acclaim to get back even a few of those precious years wasted in the jungle.
Several Christian corollaries here, too, intricately entangled with the Juneteenth truths:
- Can Christians inadvertently engage in wars that are already won?
- Can we mistakenly hunker down in jungles, pouring out our lives in defending territory that doesn’t matter a bit to our King?
- Can we operate under such anachronistic assumptions that even our noblest sacrifices amount to, well, a waste of time?
I think we can. I think sometimes we do. And I think the single biggest reason that Onada stayed stuck as long as he did is also the single biggest reason that we stay stuck as long as we sometimes do: isolation.
Onada was all by himself in the jungle. There were no voices besides his own to offer alternative perspectives or to argue from a different logical vantage point. A monologue rarely reveals new insights.
One conversation with his Emperor – a few words! – and Onada would have caught up with reality and been free to go live his life pursuing purposes that actually mattered. In the absence of that one conversation, thirty years wasted, off task.
We Christians can achieve similar effects by isolating ourselves – in person, online – so that the only voices we ever encounter are those whose perspectives and logical vantage points mirror our own. Like monologues, echo chambers tend inexorably toward exaggeration and obsolescence.
One conversation with King Jesus – a few words! – and we can catch up with reality and be freed to go live life pursuing purposes that actually matter. In the absence of such conversation, we cannot help but waste our time and substance, off task.
Onada had no idea the war was over. The whole world had changed, and he had had no idea.
The enslaved people of Galveston had no idea that they were free. The whole world had changed, and they had had no idea.
What about us?
Do we understand that we are free? Do we live as free people – demonstrating and declaring the goodness of the One Who purchased our freedom?
Do we understand that the war is won? Do we fight the good fight in that knowledge?
Juneteenth matters so much.
It matters because it’s an opportunity to celebrate the principles of freedom and justice for all, which this nation continues to strive to perfect.
It matters because it’s history – and we have to remember accurately who we have been, if we are going to vision effectively who we want to become.
It also matters because it points beyond American freedom, to the freedom Christ purchased once, for all, on the Cross.
We have heard the unbelievably good news: we are free!
Let’s live into our freedom, share the news of that freedom with everyone else, and stay in constant contact with our King, so that we can align all our efforts with His orders.
Praise God for Juneteenth!
And praise God for the freedom that lasts beyond any and all holidays and transcends any and all borders…
Freedom for now. Freedom forever. Praise God!
Shannon Vowell, a frequent contributor to Good News, blogs at shannonvowell.com. She is the author of Beginning … Again: Discovering and Delighting in God’s Plan for your Future, available on Amazon.
by Steve | Jun 9, 2023 | In the News, Perspective / News
What is a Methodist?
By Thomas Lambrecht –
I have argued before that a consistent Methodist identity has been blurred and obscured in The United Methodist Church. What it means to be United Methodist varies from church to church and conference to conference. A wide latitude in what we believe, even to the point of accommodating teaching that contradicts our doctrinal standards, makes it difficult to say with any confidence what United Methodists believe. Relegating the Book of Discipline to the status of “guidelines” instead of church law to be followed makes it apparent that United Methodists do not even share common practices in many cases.
The launching of the Global Methodist Church signals a desire to reclaim a consistent Methodist identity. While we may express our ethnically diverse faith in different ways based on individual personality, age, culture, or location, there is a hunger for the common thread or the strong foundation of Methodism.
John Wesley, Methodism’s founder, was faced with the need to define what the Methodist movement was all about. Within four years of his heart-warming experience of assurance on Aldersgate Street, Wesley was beset by criticism and misunderstanding (misinformation?) from the established Church of England. In response, he wrote a short pamphlet, The Character of a Methodist, to answer his critics and define his expectations for what is a Methodist. Revisiting his definition of Methodism can help us recover and clarify our Methodist identity.
Wesley argues that a Methodist is no more and no less than a Christian, one who follows “the common fundamental principles of Christianity.” Wesley saw Methodism as getting back to the basics of Christian faith and life, which had been watered down or forgotten by the Church of England. In our own day, we can do no better than follow Wesley’s example and get back to the basics of what it means to be and live as a Christian in today’s world.
Interestingly, Wesley begins his definition of Methodism by reclaiming the authority of Scripture. Methodists believe “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (quoting 2 Timothy 3:16) and that “the written Word of God [is] the only and the sufficient rule both of Christian faith and practice” (emphasis original). Over the decades, the widely-held perception of the Bible has evolved from it being the Word and revelation of God, to that it contains the Word of God, to a document as inspired by God as a pastor’s eloquent Sunday sermon, to being a record of some people’s experiences with God that holds only as much authority as we are willing to give it. Wesley returns us to a high view of Scripture as our only authority for what to believe and how to live as disciples of Jesus Christ, giving us sufficient guidance on matters of faith and life that cannot be overridden by any other source of wisdom or knowledge.
Methodists believe “Christ to be the Eternal Supreme God.” This emphatic statement puts the focus on Jesus Christ as the heart of Christianity. In a day when Jesus is seen by some as only a prophet or moral teacher, and as a human being in need of teaching and correcting by others, it is healthy to return to a high view of Jesus Christ as “the Messiah, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16). Depart from this foundational belief and one has left Christian faith.
At the same time, while insisting on uniformity of belief on the major doctrines of Christianity (think the Nicene creed), Methodists allow freedom of thought on disputable matters. “As to all opinions which do not strike at the root of Christianity, we ‘think and let think.’” Methodism should therefore avoid endless disputes over lesser theological points. Modern United Methodism has found itself embroiled in vehement arguments over political and social opinions that are not clearly spelled out in Scripture or the creeds. We would do well to find unity in the essentials, while giving each other liberty in non-essential matters. As recent divisions have shown, however, the most important debate may be whether a particular point is an essential tenet of the faith and life of a Christian. (For example, is the definition of marriage and sexual morality essential to being a Christian?)
Wesley made it clear that Methodists are not “attached to any peculiar mode of speaking, any quaint or uncommon set of expressions,” but prefer “the most obvious, easy, common words” to convey our meaning. In a word, everyday language for everyday people. Nor is Methodist identity based on “actions, customs, or usages” that are not commanded in Scripture (e.g., a certain type of apparel, using a certain posture of the body in worship, abstaining from marriage or from certain foods or drink). Our identity is not found in some idiosyncratic way of speaking or acting, but in our common humanity as adopted children of God.
Methodists seek balance in doctrine, rather than “laying the whole stress … on any single part” of faith. We seek to develop a fuller understanding of all aspects of theology, rather than emphasizing some parts and ignoring others. Here, the United Methodist emphasis on social witness seems a bit unbalanced. Social witness accomplishes little apart from personal conversion and transformative discipleship. Social witness does not change individual spiritual lives – only the power of God can do that. Unfortunately, United Methodism has often forsaken seeking God’s power for seeking worldly or political power. The lack of fruitfulness bears witness to the futility of that course of action.
Methodists believe salvation consists of “holiness of heart and life.” It is not just saying the sinner’s prayer but embarking on a life of growing discipleship. This holiness springs from faith alone, not from following a long list of rules. The more time we spend with Jesus, the more like him we become, and it shows in the way we live. Obedience to God’s commandments springs from faith and love, not from human effort. The greater our faith and love for God, the greater our obedience will be.
The Christian life is characterized by love, joy, and hope. We experience the love of God and return our love to God. We experience the joy of knowing our sins are forgiven and we are adopted into God’s family as his child. We belong to God through Jesus Christ. We are hopeful for the future, based on trust in God’s providence. We entrust our life and circumstances into the hands of a loving Father, knowing he will work all things together for good.
The Christian life is a life of unceasing prayer. Not that we are constantly uttering words of prayer to God, but that we are continually “lifting up the heart to God,” with or without words. It is an attitude and alignment of our spirit toward God constantly in all that we are thinking and doing.
The Christian life is a life of active love. Based on God’s love, we in turn love every person with whom we come into contact, even our enemies. “As we have opportunity [Wesley – ‘as time allows’], doing good to all people” (Gal. 6:10).
The Christian life is a lifelong process of spiritual maturing. Through this process, we are continually being purified by God’s love from every unloving desire and every worldly way of seeing or thinking.
The Christian life means being committed to doing God’s will and keeping his commandments, devoting ourselves to God’s glory, not our own, in whatever activity or business in which we engage. At the same time, it is guarding against accepting or approving something that is wrong just because it has become fashionable in the world around us and allowing the “crowd” to determine how we ought to live. This last point is actually our battle in 21st century America. Too often, the church has allowed the ways of the world to influence how we live as Christians, instead of standing apart and allowing our unique way of living to transform the world.
One of our great failures as the Church of Jesus Christ is to allow ourselves to be persuaded by the “sexual revolution” to abandon Christian morality when it comes to sex and relationships. The current controversy over LGBT practices is just the tip of the iceberg. We have allowed infidelity, adultery, pre-marital sex, pornography, and sexual abuse to take up residence in the Christian life. We have failed to winsomely teach not only the “what” of Christian morality, but the “why.” We have failed to hold our leaders accountable to live up to Christian standards. At the same time, we have failed to offer the forgiveness and healing of Jesus for all those caught in sexual sin and brokenness. Surely as Methodists we can and will do better!
Wesley’s purpose was not to distinguish Methodists from other Christians, but to distinguish Methodists from the world. He promoted what he called “primitive religion,” a return to the foundational principles of faith and life found in the Bible and the early Church. Wesley’s dream was to reform and renew the Church of England to live up to its potential as a true and living part of the worldwide Body of Christ. When that proved impossible due to the resistance of the Church of England, Methodists struck out on their own direction to fulfill God’s calling.
In the same way, traditionalist Methodists today hoped and dreamed to see United Methodism spiritually renewed and reformed to live up to Wesley’s idea of what we believe the Body of Christ should be. Now that that hope and dream have proved impossible, many are striking out on their own to form a new part of the Body of Christ – with optimistic humility – where they can live out their understanding of what it means to be a Methodist Christian.
In Wesley’s words, “By these marks, by these fruits of a living faith, do we labour to distinguish ourselves from the unbelieving world, from all those whose minds or lives are not according to the gospel of Christ. But from real Christians, of whatsoever denomination they be, we earnestly desire not to be distinguished at all. … ‘Whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother’” (Mat. 12:50, emphasis original).
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Jun 2, 2023 | In the News, Perspective / News
Of Borrowed Lawnmowers and United Methodist Clergy Status
By Bob Phillips –
A man went to his neighbor’s house and asked to borrow his lawnmower. The neighbor said no. The man politely asked why, since it was sitting unused in the garage. The neighbor replied, “Well, I have to shave.” Puzzled, the man asked, “Do you shave with your lawnmower?” The neighbor replied, “Friend, if I don’t want to loan you my lawnmower, one reason is as good as another.”
It appears the owner of the lawnmower has moved into a leadership position in the United Methodist Church. Honorably retired UM clergy who have served in supportive pastoral roles (such as pastoral visitation) in disaffiliating churches are being told bluntly to quit such positions on pain of charges filed to strip them of conference membership and ordination, i.e., the ecclesial version of the death penalty. No dialogue, no mercy, no kidding. The only pastor I have known personally who had previously been so treated was a clergyman from another conference, who faced such threats and language after court conviction for the murder of his wife.
The reason offered for this blunt force trauma approach to collegiality apparently arises from a tactic embraced by the Council of Bishops. Only when/if General Conference 2024 declares the Global Methodist Church a religio licita (legal religion, to borrow the Roman Empire’s official 1st century phrasing) can UM clergy serve in a GMC setting. Until then, the GMC remains literally “anathema,” a religio illicita, a label by which the Roman Empire justified rejection and legal pressure against the infant Christian church and now defines UM clergy who achieve traitor status. Failure to distance oneself completely from any GMC congregation risks the cancellation of decades of honorable service and the loss of vital pension benefits attached to a local conference program but limited to retirees “in good standing.” Retired and extension ministry clergy who happened to be part of or employed by a church that has disaffiliated must quit their employment – or be canceled.
For decades, retired clergy have served honorably in numerous denominations never “officially recognized” by any General Conference. No charges were filed, ever. No public uproar was kindled, ever. No one, regardless of theological leaning left or right, ever dreamed that pastoral presence in such churches in need (ranging in my personal knowledge from Mennonite to American Baptist to Presbyterian to UCC and even in one case Unitarian-Universalist) were grounds to be defrocked and booted.
Two esteemed colleagues in my conference served, in retirement, a Mennonite Church, one of whom retains a webpage title of “Pastor Emeritus.” The Mennonite church, with 1/4th the number of congregations as the GMC, shares the identical status of no recognition by any General Conference of a type now required of the GMC. No one forced those two pastors into exile. In contrast, deep satisfaction is kindled as retired clergy continue to offer ministry with compassion and conviction, fulfilling the preaching-teaching-pastoral care vision that is part of the lifelong vocational calling of ordained ministry.
The GMC has been recognized as a legitimate faith group by secular entities such as the Department of Defense, the Veteran’s Administration, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and the Internal Revenue Service. Faith groups have recognized and/or worked affirmatively with the GMC. These include (in part) The Association of Professional Chaplains, the National Association of Evangelicals (representing the Wesleyan Church, Free Methodists, Primitive Methodist, Salvation Army, Nazarene, and other Pentecostal cousins), the Anglican Church of North America, and the Church of God, Anderson, Indiana.
Asbury Theological Seminary graduates more UM clergy than 12 of the 13 official seminaries of the UM Church, and official UM school United Theological Seminary is joined with Asbury in official partnership with the GMC. Warm and collegial relations have been formed with numerous Christian denominations that the open hearts and open minds of professional United Methodism refuse to accept with a closed doors policy.
Rationalizations complaining about the GMC premature launching, or the lack of an official Discipline are straight from the lips of the lawnmower neighbor. If such as the Department of Defense, after rigorous and non-partisan vetting, finds the GMC to be a legitimate faith group to endorse ministry chaplains, legitimacy before unbiased eyes is beyond doubt. UM leadership is modeling its attitude toward retiree pastoral connection with the GMC as akin to Shylock in The Merchant of Venice snorting, “It is not so stated in the bond.”
Prior to the voting process for one annual conference for disaffiliation, the Dean of the Cabinet made specific comments that all churches and clergy involved are and would remain “siblings in Christ,” and all are part of “the Church universal.” Subsequent legal threats more accurately reflect the “siblings” called Abel and Cain than they do brothers and sisters in our common Lord Jesus Christ. Appeals that leadership only is being obedient to the Book of Discipline fall flat with the publicly unchallenged precedent of selective obedience to that same Discipline and General Conference actions by several members of the Council of Bishops.
What to do? Yes, retired clergy caught in this bind can follow conscience and incur charges and a church trial. It is true that a few hundred such trials would gain national attention, but that mostly would bring laughable discredit on Methodism in general among the larger secular population. One of the main reasons many traditional folks are leaving the legacy church, despite a clear “win” at General Conference 2019, is distaste for fighting. People do not pick a church or go to Annual or General Conference to fight. Major swaths of United Methodism in the United States either openly disobey church teaching without consequences or expend serious energy bending the rules. Thus, many evangelicals have just gotten tired and wish to reboot.
All sides realize the real challenges are those of demographics of age, church geographic mis-locations, trust deficits, fractured theology, inability to agree on basic definitions (such as “make disciples” or “resurrection of Jesus”) and denial of all the above – plus a host of other issues. These are pulling churches down regardless of their views on sexuality, with a nearly 70 percent decline in UM presence in the US population since 1968. One option, to paraphrase Chairman Mao, is to let a thousand church trials bloom, but to whose good? Not the witness of the church to the world.
Another option is for the retired pastor to do ministry under the radar. Since the typical district superintendent is not secret police material, a gentle non-statement of activity often suffices. To those who may thunder that retired clergy should “confess” their sin of pastoral visitation or preaching at a forbidden church, one could morally consider a sweet change of subject. Call it redemptive “misinformation.” Think of it as better to seek forgiveness than permission. If one’s conscience in Christ is informed and clear (Acts 24:16) simply do what Bishop Melvin Talbert did in Cal-Nevada around 1998 when he defended dismissing complaints against clergy who conducted “Holy Unions” in violation of official church teaching. View the law through the lens of a clear conscience. Don’t follow his subsequent actions of flipping into a “Champion of Discipline strict obedience” when he forced 13 evangelical pastors and over 4,000 conference members out of the denomination when some suggested putting part of their apportionments into escrow as a protest of their conscience.
In the long view one finds hope. The Mission Society for United Methodists formed in the early 1980s as an evangelical alternative to the Board of Global Ministries with its largely (but not exclusively) left-of-center approach in theology and practice. Bishops circled the wagons and (with a few exceptions) refused to appoint any UM clergy to serve as missionaries under the Mission Society flag. Appointment as chaplain to “Snap-On Tools” or to totally secular teaching positions in public settings remained fine, but not service as a missionary of Christ under a foreign Wesleyan banner. Today the current expression of the Mission Society, called TMS Global, has 170 full-time missionaries in the field, compared to 240 with the Board of Global Ministries, with hostilities and public spats laid aside in the common Kingdom interest. That is 410 Wesleyan witnesses, not a zero-sum grudge match. People (on all sides) can “get over it,” and must.
If, as I believe, God is kindling a Methodist renewal moment, the hissing and sniping one sees in numerous settings will give way to a larger win-win vision – and right as well as left both need moments of confession. Imagine a UM General Conference with zero attention given to fighting over sexuality. Imagine center-left and center-right expressions of Wesleyan Christianity, each reaching wide segments of US and global society that the other group cannot effectively reach. Imagine a rebooted UM church and a reinvented GMC both lean and focused on what matters most. Most of all, imagine a respectful collaboration in numerous areas for gospel purposes. Imagine an approach to one another where gospel seed for the harvest, not salt on the wound, is sown in the fields of our siblings in Christ. Just imagine – and let the Spirit make it so.
Bob Phillips is Chair of the WCA, Illinois Great Rivers Conference, and Captain, Chaplain Corps, U.S. Navy (retired). He has degrees from University of Illinois, Asbury and Princeton Seminaries, and the University of St. Andrews. Phillips is also a graduate of the Senior Executive Seminar on Morality, Ethics and Public Policy at the Brookings Institution. See Bob’s work on Methodist Mitosis in Methodist Review. This article was originally published on peopleneedjesus.net and is republished by permission.
