by Steve | May 14, 2018 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter, Uncategorized
By Thomas Lambrecht-
On Monday, May 7, the Council of Bishops announced [link] that two of the five amendments to the United Methodist Constitution approved by the 2016 General Conference were defeated by the votes of the annual conferences. In order to amend the Constitution, it takes approval by two-thirds of the General Conference delegates and two-thirds of all the annual conference members. Results on the voting had been anticipated last November, but some annual conferences failed to vote in a timely fashion.
The two amendments that were defeated both related to combatting discrimination, particularly discrimination based on gender. Amendment I lost by less than two-tenths of one percent — by my calculations roughly 65 votes out of over 47,000 ballots cast. Amendment II lost by 5.3 percentage points, or a little more than 2,500 votes out of more than 47,300 ballots cast.
The women bishops issued a pastoral letter lamenting ongoing sexism and resolving to continue working for inclusion. The Rev. Dr. Steve Harper identified misogyny and a chauvinistic theology of God as one major factor in the amendments’ defeat.
These and other overwrought statements are simplistic and ignore other concerns that played a role in the defeat of the amendments.
For fifty years, Good News has been a voice for women’s equality, affirming in particular women as pastors and teachers and highlighting efforts to combat human trafficking and rescue girls and women from oppression. While we are aware that a few evangelical United Methodists oppose women in leadership in the church, we have attempted to clearly advocate for the full equal value and participation of women at all levels of the church.
Amendment I
At the same time, in a statement posted last year, Good News expressed concerns (although not opposition) about the two defeated amendments. Amendment I added a whole new paragraph to the Constitution (which we thought more appropriately belonged in the Social Principles) about the equal value of girls and women, acknowledging a long history of discrimination and making a commitment to eliminate such discrimination. We stated, “While this statement is well-intentioned, and we support its strong emphasis on the equality of women, we are concerned with its theological fuzziness being written into our Constitution. The church’s advocacy for women’s equality is well-stated elsewhere in the Book of Discipline.” In particular, we were concerned that “the second sentence raises theological concerns when it says, ‘it is contrary to Scripture and to logic to say that God is male or female … maleness and femaleness are … not characteristics of the divine.’ Does this mean Jesus is not male? Or does it mean that Jesus, who is obviously male, is not divine? Either position is contrary to our doctrinal standards.”
In response to Harper, I agree that “God is a composite of genders, the essence of Being that is neither defined by or limited to any specific gender.” However, Jesus Christ is fully God as well as fully human. And male/female gender is a characteristic of being human. So Jesus, while God, did have a male gender. That is not a basis for elevating men over women, discriminating against women, or devaluing women in any way. But the statement in the amendment was confusing and theologically inexact. Putting it in the Constitution had the potential for all kinds of adverse unintended consequences.
Amendment II
Amendment II added the words “ability, age, gender, and marital status” to the list of types of persons against which the church cannot discriminate. Good News stated, “While in sympathy with the intentions of the proposed additions, we are concerned about potential unintended consequences of adopting this amendment as presently worded. We encourage careful consideration of the issues involved before adopting this amendment. We would hope to support better wording in the future that could accomplish the purposes in a clearer and less controversial way.”
We had three concerns about Amendment II:
- The word “gender” is no longer understood to be merely a binary (male/female) term. It has recently become a loaded word in Western culture and carries within it connotations of transgender, gender queer, and other perceptions of gender that we do not believe should be granted blanket and unconditional inclusion in the Constitution.
- We are concerned that adding “marital status” without defining the term could be interpreted to give a mandate in our constitution to recognize same-sex marriage or polygamy in those countries that allow such. The current definition of marriage in the Social Principles could be nullified by this Constitutional language.
- The inclusion of “age” could result in the elimination of mandatory retirement for bishops and clergy. There was no discussion of this possibility at General Conference, and we are concerned that this could be an unintended consequence of adopting this amendment. If we are to eliminate mandatory retirement, it should at least be discussed and considered by the General Conference delegates before being approved.
The women bishops “weep for those who are not protected from exclusion in the church because of race, color, gender, national origin, ability, age, marital status, or economic condition.” However, our Constitution already explicitly protects persons from discrimination based on race, color, national origin, status, or economic condition (¶ 4). While discrimination is alive and well in our church for these qualities, defeat of the amendment did not reflect, nor did it increase the likelihood of, such discrimination against these brothers and sisters. We must continue to be vigilant in eradicating such discrimination.
These concerns were also identified by others, including the Rev. Dr. Jerry Kulah in Liberia. The United Methodist Church has numerous other statements in our Constitution and throughout the Book of Discipline that affirm the value and role of women in the church and combat discrimination against women and girls.
A Soap Opera Plot Twist
Now it turns out that the very sentence that caused so much concern in Amendment I was actually deleted by the General Conference and should not have been included in the wording that was put up for ratification in the annual conferences. This colossal error following the 2016 General Conference means that the amendment (with the correct wording) will now have to be voted on again by all the annual conferences.
The deletion of the controversial sentence removes most of the concerns Good News had with this amendment, and we predict it will ultimately pass and be ratified by the annual conferences.
Amendment V
Lost in all the controversy was the approval of Amendment V, which grants the Council of Bishops the power to intervene (by a two-thirds vote) in a complaint process against a bishop. This means that, if the Council of Bishops is unsatisfied with the outcome of the complaint process, it can take over the process and pursue a better outcome.
This amendment was ratified by an 81 percent approval, although the Western Jurisdiction voted against it by an 81 percent margin. The Western Jurisdiction annual conferences were evidently concerned that this amendment would now enable the Council of Bishops to ensure that Bishop Karen Oliveto is eventually removed from office.
Although Good News supported this amendment as a welcome enhancement of the accountability process with bishops who are alleged to have violated the Discipline, I have no illusions that a two-thirds majority of the Council of Bishops is willing to ensure accountability for any bishop, let alone for Bishop Oliveto. Someday, this provision might be helpful, but I do not see it having immediate impact (although I could be wrong).
In short, all the hand-wringing and controversy over the supposed misogyny of United Methodists leading to defeating essential protections for women and girls is a tempest in a teapot. Many protections already exist in our Discipline, and the vast majority of United Methodists are committed to equal valuing and treatment for women and girls. What we are hesitant to approve are vague and confusing statements that lock our church into constitutionally protected language that could have serious unintended consequences. For that, our annual conference members ought to be commended, not criticized.
Tom Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
by Steve | May 4, 2018 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
By Thomas Lambrecht –
The Council of Bishops is currently meeting to decide what proposal(s) to submit to the 2019 General Conference to resolve the conflict in our church. Will they understand and accommodate the interests and convictions of incompatibilists in their proposal(s)? The following is excerpted and adapted from my chapter in the book, Holy Contradictions, edited by Brian K. Milford and recently released by Abingdon.
For more than 2,000 years there has been a unified global vision for Christian marriage and human sexuality. In every culture, on every continent, and in every language around the globe, Christianity’s teaching has always promoted the exclusive belief that one man and one woman in lifelong marriage optimizes human flourishing within society. It is a foundational belief shared in common within Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism. United Methodism has always taught that the anchor for intimate relationships for clergy and laity should be fidelity in marriage and celibacy in singleness.
After two millennia, a contrary teaching has been introduced within segments of North American and European mainline denominations. It proposes that contemporary same-sex marriage and intimacy is not the same thing as that prohibited by certain biblical passages. It proposes that mutual, loving same-sex relationships can and should exist today – and should be blessed by the worldwide United Methodist Church. From the viewpoint of progressives, contemporary scientific understandings about the origins of sexual orientation make it likely that same-sex attraction is an inborn characteristic. Therefore, they believe same-sex relations can be holy and good if engaged in within the parameters of faithfulness and mutuality. Accordingly, they believe, the church ought to condone same-sex relationships, perform same-sex marriages, and ordain non-celibate lesbians and gays into ministry.
These two positions tend to be mutually exclusive. The differences between them are stark and irreconcilable. Underlying the two positions are often different views about biblical authority and inspiration, different definitions of holiness, and different understandings of what it means to be a disciple of Jesus Christ.
Thus, it is nearly impossible for many people holding the two different positions to share a common mission of making disciples for the transformation of the world. For one, transforming the world means working for the full equality, acceptance, and affirmation of LGBTQ persons and their relationships and their full inclusion in the church. For the other, transforming the world means promoting traditional views of marriage and sexuality, as well as offering support and transformative healing to LGBTQ persons. The two are working at cross purposes and in opposition to each other!
The document “In Search of Unity,” published in 1998 as the report of a theological dialog about the tensions in The United Methodist Church, presents an analysis first articulated by now retired Bishop Judith Craig. The church is not only divided between those who have a traditional understanding of marriage as between one man and one woman, versus those who have a more progressive understanding of marriage as able to be between any two persons, regardless ofgender. The church is also divided between those who can live with a variety of opinions and practices of ministry around LGBTQ persons (“compatibilists”), versus those who believe that the church’s position is of essential importance and cannot live in a church where the other viewpoint is promoted and practiced (“incompatibilists”).
Progressive Incompatibilists
Progressive incompatibilists “believe that the exclusion of anyone from the full life of the church is completely unacceptable because it is contradictory to the gospel. For them, homosexual persons, practicing or not, are persons of sacred worth living according to the gifts and evidences of God’s grace given to them. To deny such persons a full place in the church is a violation of the holiness and catholicity of the church. For these incompatibilists, to continue to participate in such an exclusive and oppressive organization only serves to legitimate the incomplete worshipping community and perpetuate the sin of exclusion. Commitment to the Church of Jesus Christ requires active resistance and the commitment to stand prophetically against the injustices perpetuated by the institution” (In Search of Unity, p. 8).
It is the progressive incompatibilist approach that has caused clergy (including one retired bishop) to perform same-sex weddings, contrary to our Book of Discipline, sometimes as a public protest event. This approach has prompted seven annual conferences and two jurisdictions to pass resolutions of non-conformity with the Book of Discipline. It has resulted in annual conference boards of ordained ministry recommending for ordination persons whom they knew to be practicing homosexuals. And it has led to the Western Jurisdiction electing and consecrating the Rev. Karen Oliveto, a married lesbian, as a United Methodist bishop.
The actions of progressive incompatibilists are an expression of their quest for justice and the rights of LGBTQ persons within the context of our church. They see this quest as informed and commanded by Scripture and the teachings of Jesus. They have come to the place where they cannot live in a denomination that does not marry or ordain gays and lesbians. So they have taken matters into their own hands and created a de facto reality in many annual conferences that is contrary to the position of The United Methodist Church.
Traditional Incompatibilists
Traditional incompatibilists, on the other hand, believe “for the United Methodist Church to accept homosexual practices either officially in its courts or unofficially by condoning widespread practice would be to forfeit its designation as ‘a body of faithful people where the pure Word of God is preached and the sacraments duly administered according to Christ’s ordinance.’ For these incompatibilists their stance is a matter of conscience as formed by Scripture and the doctrinal standards of The United Methodist Church. Furthermore, most incompatibilists on the more conservative side believe that the classical teaching of the Christian tradition is a much-needed word of healing. It is a precious medicine that the Holy Spirit can use to transform and redeem all our sexual sins and wounds. Hence they cannot but proclaim and implement the full liberty from all sin promised in the gospel and warranted by the Lordship of Jesus Christ” (In Search of Unity, p. 8).
Traditional incompatibilists believe the church has unofficially changed its position by its inability to hold accountable those who have violated the teachings and requirements of the church. This has prompted a number of large congregations to leave The United Methodist Church and is causing thousands of individuals to leave their local congregations or withhold financial support for the church.
Implications
Currently, many if not most progressive incompatibilists seem willing to live in a denomination that allows, but does not require, same-sex weddings and ordination of practicing LGBTQ persons. The shared support of progressive incompatibilists and compatibilists of every stripe has given rise to compatibilist approaches, from the Hamilton-Slaughter “agree to disagree” to the “local option” to the “Third Way” from the Connectional Table and now to the “One Church Model” from the Commission on a Way Forward. All have in common the creation of a compatibilist denomination that allows different forms of beliefs and ministries to function within one organization.
This compatibilist approach, however, ignores the interests of traditional incompatibilists, who cannot live in a denomination where what they see as disobedience to the clear teaching of Scripture is allowed. U.S. traditional incompatibilists and those from the central conferences outside the U.S.-notably in Africa and much of the Philippines and Eastern Europe-constitute a majority of the church as reflected in the delegation at General Conference.
Any attempt to engage in mutually respectful ways of living in the Wesleyan tradition amid the current crisis must reckon with the conflicting interests reflected in the incompatibilist groups. Progressive incompatibilists need to have a Wesleyan denomination that allows same-sex marriage and ordination of practicing homosexuals. They will keep fighting until they get one. The only way to stop the conflict is to give them their own denomination, whether it is by evicting them from the current United Methodist Church or by some form of negotiated separation.
Traditional incompatibilists need to have a Wesleyan denomination that disallows same-sex marriage and ordination of practicing homosexuals in order to remain true to their understanding of Scripture. Traditionalists hold the majority at General Conference. So the only way for progressives to change the position of the church is to evict traditionalists or have some form of negotiated separation.
Can traditional and progressive incompatibilists live together in the same church body? Ultimately, I believe the answer is “no.” As the bishops meet this week and issue their proposal, will they take seriously the needs and convictions of incompatibilists?
Tom Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News. This article is taken from Holy Contradictions (Abingdon Press, 2018), a collection of essays representing diverse responses on how United Methodists can live in the Wesleyan tradition in times of disagreement. The seventeen contributors include among others Tracy S. Malone, Scott T. Kisker, Rob Fuquay, Audrey Warren, and Philip Wogaman. It can be purchased HERE
by Steve | Apr 30, 2018 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
By Ralph Pauls –
Jesus once told a parable about financial dealings and a shrewd manager. “Give an account of your stewardship,” the manager is told in the story (Luke 16:2).
In his sermon, “The Good Steward,” Methodism’s founder John Wesley (1703-1791) wrote about the important issue of the responsibilities we hold regarding our financial resources.
“In so many respects are the children of men stewards of the Lord, the Possessor of heaven and earth: So large a portion of His goods, of various kinds, hath he committed to their charge,” Wesley observed. “But it is not forever, nor indeed for any considerable time: We have this trust reposed in us only during the short, uncertain space that we sojourn here below; … The moment the body ‘returns to the dust as it was, and the Spirit to God that gave it,’ we bear that character no more; the time of our stewardship is at an end. Part of those goods wherewith we were before entrusted are now come to an end; at least, they are so with regard to us; nor are we longer entrusted with them: And that part which remains can no longer be employed or improved as it was before.”
Reflecting on John Wesley’s words, author Gary Hoag writes: “The world wants each of us to think that life is a long journey during which we are our own master. Alternatively, God’s Word and John Wesley with passion teach us that life is a ‘short, uncertain space’ in which we serve as stewards of gifts, goods, and the greatest treasure of all, the gospel. Thus, we must live in a state of readiness to give an account for our stewardship. Are you ready?”
Those of us at Good News are so appreciative of the depth of generosity that our friends have shown through their financial support. We are grateful and count on your continued help.
Ralph Pauls is the director of strategic resources for Good News.
by Steve | Apr 30, 2018 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
By Thomas Lambrecht –
The 2012 General Conference commissioned the Board of Church and Society to do a total rewrite of the United Methodist Social Principles. The project is moving toward completion with the publication of the first draft of the proposed new principles.
The aims in drafting the new principles were to make them:
- More succinct
- More theologically grounded
- More globally relevant
Since their introduction in 1972, the Social Principles have been added to and elaborated on. It has grown from 42 paragraphs in 1980 to 76 paragraphs in 2016. In 1980, the Social Principles took up 18 pages in the Discipline, and in 2016 they took up 40 pages using smaller type! And there is no disputing that the perspective on social issues is extremely U.S. centric and often not applicable to countries in other parts of the world where 40 percent of United Methodists live.
In general, the new Social Principles accomplish the goals set for them. They are more succinct, scaling back to 60 paragraphs instead of 76 and substantially shortening some of the paragraphs. However, they were only able to pare back from 2016’s 15,000 words to now 14,000 words, with two paragraphs left to add. At first read, it still seems like there are some areas of overlap and duplication that could be consolidated, and there could be further shortening to reduce the overall length.
There has been an effort to incorporate more Scripture references into the principles and to set a theological context for many of the topics, which is helpful. Unfortunately, the effort to provide Scriptural background sometimes results in the twisting or misapplication of a given passage. For example, the section on military service uses Jesus’ exclamation from Luke 19:42, “If you had recognized on this day the things that make for peace!” as an argument for peacemaking. In fact, Jesus is talking here mainly about peace with God through accepting Jesus as the Messiah, rather than human efforts at resolving conflict in non-military ways.
The attempt to make the Social Principles more globally relevant has resulted in far less specificity in the principles. Rather than addressing specific concrete dilemmas, they speak in broad generalities. This does enable the principles to translate better into a variety of global contexts. On the other hand, they tend to be much blander and not as helpful in addressing the real ethical and moral issues underlying the statement.
Many of the principles tend to address the topic in a more superficial way without wrestling with the competing values that often are the source of controversy. For example, the principles on migration, immigration, and refugees extol the value of welcoming the stranger and providing radical hospitality, but fail to mention the need to preserve national boundaries and protect a nation’s citizens. All these values are important and supported in Scripture, and the difficult moral reasoning is seeking how to balance them.
Distressingly, some of the more controversial areas saw a decided swing toward a more progressive approach. This is especially true in the principle on abortion, where all the nuanced language added in the last 20 years has been jettisoned in favor of the eerily unqualified statement, “We support legal access to abortion.” There is no examination of any parameters to legal abortion or any hint that abortion should be restricted in any way or that abortion is the tragic loss of a life. It is treated as a neutral decision, and the focus of the principle is on preventing unintended pregnancy.
Similarly, the principle on marriage and divorce fails to set forth any kind of theological understanding of marriage, other than to say it is one form of human relationship in which we ought to treat one another with humility, gentleness, patience, and love. Marriage is not defined, skirting the challenges of polygamy or same-sex marriage. Much more space is given to situations when marriage has gone wrong (abuse, exploitation, divorce, child marriage) than in setting forth what can be done to strengthen marriages or why marriage is important.
On the other hand, the principle on “Military Service” is well balanced, affirming both the pacifist perspective and the “just war” perspective (although it is not named such in the principle). The parallel principles on “War and Peace” and “Peacebuilding” emphasize peacemaking without acknowledging situations where armed conflict may be unavoidable. This is one instance where combining the three principles could yield a more balanced and comprehensive understanding of the issues involved.
The hot-button paragraphs on “Human Sexuality” and “Rights of Persons of All Sexual Orientations and Gender Identities” were not included, pending the 2019 General Conference’s decisions on these issues. However, the principle on “Gender Equality” implies the acceptance of multiple genders beyond male and female and plainly states, “Discrimination based on gender identity is a sin.” This is obviously beyond where many United Methodists are prepared to go.
The Board of Church and Society is looking for feedback on this initial draft of the Social Principles. Comments can be entered on this web link. I would encourage you to read the proposed principles and give your feedback to help influence the second draft. The final product will come to the 2020 General Conference for approval. As they stand now, there is a lot of room for improvement.
Tom Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Apr 20, 2018 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
Rebekah Clapp, Judy Graham, and Pastor Adria Nuñez Ortiz. Photo by Celebration Ministries.
By Katy Kiser –
“Now is the time of God’s favor, Now is the day of salvation.”
– II Corinthians 6:2
Each year, women come to the national conference of the Celebration Women’s Ministry in Houston seeking to grow in Christ and encounter God’s Spirit. Some seek the assurance of salvation; others need forgiveness or desire to be liberated from sin, past and present; still others seek spiritual, emotional, or physical healing. This past March, women experienced all this and more at the Celebration gathering.
The Celebration leadership team chose their 2018 conference theme from the above cited verses from Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians. They were reminded that the people of the Corinthian Church had much in common with the church in America of our day. They too were suffering disunity; sexual immorality was a problem, and difficult challenges were overwhelming the church. In the two letters to the Corinthians, we find some of Paul’s most important theological writing.
Inspired by Paul’s words, “Now is the time of God’s favor – the day of His salvation,” the leadership team delved into the meaning of salvation. They found it to be a comprehensive term that had a depth of meaning beyond the initial decision to believe and be saved from the consequences of sin. Salvation was a word that implied forgiveness, healing, prosperity, deliverance, safety, rescue, liberation, and restoration. It signified everything the leadership team hoped women would experience at their yearly conference.
Readers of Good News will recall the March/April 2017 cover story written by editor Steve Beard about the Spirit-filled revival in the Methodist Church of Cuba. He had visited Cuba with Dr. David Watson, the academic dean at United Theological Seminary, and a team of seminarians. During a conversation after the article came out, Beard encouraged Judy Graham, president of Celebration, to visit the Cuban church or bring the move of the Spirit in Cuba to the women of Celebration. In response, he and Watson put her in touch with Pastor Adria Nuñez Ortiz from Havana.
Pastor Nuñez is the product of a powerful move of God and His Spirit in her country. The people in her Havana community know first-hand the hardship of living with scarce resources such as food and clothing. Although for many decades, freedom to worship publically was not possible, belief in Christ survived. It brought hope and helped the Cuban people rise above their circumstances.
Salvation was the power that healed, allowed those trapped in prostitution, drugs, and other addictions to find freedom, and gave them the ability to forgive and be forgiven. Pastor Nuñez wanted the women of Celebration to know and experience the power of salvation to bring dynamic transformation that enables all women in every culture to find the way that leads to life.
Nuñez told the women to “rise up wisely like Jael, to be virtuous like Mary, to carry hope to those around them like Esther and Ruth, to be full of faith like Hannah, and to be sensible and brave like Deborah.” Each of these Bible women were given exactly what was needed to meet their challenges; each challenge was unique. Nuñez wanted each woman to be as faithful and courageous as Esther, who the Lord had raised up for the challenge of “such a time as this.”
Women receive healing. Photo by Celebration Ministries.
At the close of her message, she issued a call for women who needed physical healing in their bodies and those who needed to receive the Holy Spirit in their soul to come forward. Whether in fire and power or in a sweet gentle presence, the Holy Spirit ministered deeply to the women present at each alter call.
Pastor Jennifer Cowart of Harvest Church in Georgia, the other featured speaker, taught the women how to live out their salvation as chosen women, honored by God; as women who are being made into the image of Christ and exemplifying his characteristics. That calls for honesty, and honest she was. A spirit of conviction fell upon the conference as Cowart got specific about walking in the new nature and refusing to be dominated by the old. She encouraged the women to be more sensitive to the needs of others and grow deeper in their understanding of the love of Christ, allowing his love to flow out to those around them in practical, tangible ways.
For Graham, the entire weekend was in sync with the beautiful work of the Holy Spirit. A highlight for her, however, was getting to pray with a woman for her salvation. This young woman had never received Christ as her Savior; her work had brought her to the last five Celebration conferences, but this year during the prayer time, she ventured on stage and asked Judy to pray with her.
Jen Cowart and Judy Graham. Photo by Celebration Ministries.
Especially important to the conference planning team was issuing an invitation to the women and pastors of the Spanish speaking churches in the Houston area and the broader Texas Conference. The planning team knew it would be exciting for them to hear Pastor Nuñez in their own language. The first evening nine women attended. The next evening more than 35 women attended – in addition to the Rev. Arturo Cadar, the Texas Conference Coordinator of Mission Field Development. After the event, he approached Graham in order to start a Spanish-language Celebration chapter. He had the women leaders in mind to continue the blessing and the move of God’s Spirit.
Before the end of the conference, testimonies began to emerge. Women were reconnected with God, many were awakened to a closer walk with Jesus, a healing presence moved in their midst, some were called into ministry, and others were inspired for mission and service.
“I felt the presence of the Holy Spirit beginning with the time I got my name tag at the registration table,” one young woman testified after attending her first Celebration event. “National Conference has changed me forever! I am a completely new person and excited about seeing God in a new light.”
“On fire” is how Judy Graham described the conference.
As the leadership of the conference began to count the ways God had moved, they gave thanks for all the lives that had been changed. For new and seasoned believers alike, National Conference was a time for each woman to move deeper into her salvation.
The theme, “Now Is The Time,” reminds us that God is at work. He is at work in our individual lives and he is at work in our church. For those who are looking for God, he is there. He is moving all of us into a more profound understanding of our salvation, that we might apprehend all that he has for us.
Katy Kiser is the Renew Network Team Leader (www.renewnetwork.org).
If your church is looking for a conference that will inspire and ignite your women’s ministry, Renew recommends making plans to attend the April 5-7, 2019, Celebration National Conference in Houston. The Rev. Carolyn Moore will be the speaker. For details contact Judy Graham at president@celebrationministries.org or visit the Celebration website at http://celebrationministries.org
by Steve | Apr 12, 2018 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
By Thomas Lambrecht –
The Council of Bishops of The United Methodist Church is asking the JudicialCouncil for a declaratory decision on what petitions can be submitted to the denomination’s Special Session of General Conference called for February 2019. The Council of Bishops announced their request in a statement issued this week.
“The intent is to resolve the question of whether additional petitions, beyond the report of the Commission on a Way Forward and the Council of Bishops, can be submitted to the Special 2019 General Conference prior to the convening of the Special General Conference,” said Bishop Bruce R. Ough, president of the Council of Bishops.
A faction of the Council of Bishops is arguing that the special called General Conference ought to only consider whatever the bishops propose as a way forward for the church in resolving disagreements over our understanding of marriage and same-sex practices. There is a powerful push to adopt the “Uniting Model” that would allow annual conferences to decide whether or not to ordain practicing homosexuals and clergy to decide whether or not to marry same-sex couples. A heavy-handed attempt by some bishops to prevent consideration of other options does not speak well of their leadership, but may indicate a level of panic, striving at any cost to keep the church “united.”
We applaud the Council of Bishops for requesting this decision in order to bring certainty to the process. Based on previous Judicial Council decisions, the Judicial Council should allow other relevant proposals to be submitted to General Conference. (Even if Judicial Council rules they cannot be submitted as part of the regular process, there is nothing preventing other proposals from being introduced on the floor of General Conference as a substitute for the bishops’ proposal.) Allowing proposals to be submitted as part of the regular process is critical to enable those alternative proposals to be properly evaluated prior to being considered by General Conference.
The General Conference delegates ought to be allowed to consider any and all proposals for a faithful way forward for our church. It is their decision that will determine the future course we take, after all. The work of the Commission on a Way Forward and the proposal(s) submitted by the bishops are important, but they do not define the final outcome. Only the General Conference can speak for the whole church in determining how we will proceed.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and vice president of Good News.
By Thomas Lambrecht-
