Why We Need a Denomination

by Steve | Aug 13, 2021 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter

Illustration by Shutterstock.

By Thomas Lambrecht –

Denominations are not in vogue right now in American culture. For the past 20 years, the non-denominational church movement has grown across the country until its congregations make up a significant portion of the Body of Christ in the U.S. and in Africa, as well. This reflects the tendency toward “do-it-yourself” (DIY) religion. Rather than submit to a prescribed set of beliefs, many pick and choose from various religious traditions to fashion their own personal religion. This smorgasbord approach to religion is highly individualized and made possible by the acceptance of the idea that there is no such thing as Truth, only an individual’s personal truths. It is amazing to hear some of the bizarre, unorthodox beliefs espoused by some who claim a Christian identity, even though (and perhaps because) they rarely or never attend a Christian church.

The individualization of religious belief is reflected in the non-denominational church movement, as well. Each church creates its own doctrinal statement and members join if they are in agreement (or at least can live with the statement). Church structure varies widely from one church to another, but most congregations have some kind of church board that may be either elected or appointed. Pastors are called or hired by the congregation, and each congregation is pretty much an island unto itself.

Some United Methodist congregations are dipping their toes in the water of non-denominationalism through the disaffiliation process enacted by the 2019 General Conference. The 100 or so churches in the U.S. that have separated under this provision have often become independent congregations, rather than affiliating with another denomination. Many of those churches may hope to align with the proposed new Global Methodist Church when it is formed. Others may find non-denominationalism attractive.

Becoming independent can be exhilarating. No one telling you what to do. No one demanding that you pay for this or that. No one telling you whom you must have as a pastor. You are free to structure your church as you like. You can decide as a congregation whether or not to support particular missions. It’s the same feeling one gets the first time one leaves home to live on one’s own.

Pretty soon, however, reality sets in. The responsibility of making all the decisions for a congregation without any guidance or support can become overwhelming. This is particularly true for smaller and mid-sized congregations.

That is why it is good to remember the reasons for being part of a larger denominational group.

Security in Doctrine

We are not saved from our sins and transformed into the image of Jesus by the correctness of our beliefs. But what we believe certainly influences our ability to be saved and informs the kind of life we live as a Christian. This is true at both the individual and the congregational level.

If we believe that everyone is going to heaven, then it is not important for us to share the good news of Jesus Christ or for individuals to surrender their lives to the lordship of Christ. If we believe the Bible is fallible, then it is all right for us to compromise the teachings of Scripture in order to be more culturally acceptable. If we believe the Bible and the Church historically are wrong about certain activities being contrary to God’s will for us, then we will be comfortable ignoring those biblical standards in the way we live our lives.

That is why it is so important for us to get our doctrinal beliefs right. Incorrect beliefs can lead us away from God and cause us to live lives that are not in keeping with God’s desire for us.

The Christian faith is not up for negotiation, either by individual persons or by individual congregations. The virtue of a denomination is that it has a set of beliefs that are consistent with historic Christian doctrine and vetted by a larger body of people. This helps keep individual Christians and individual congregations from going off the rails in their beliefs and “shipwrecking their faith.” Doctrinal accountability is essential for the Christian life.

That accountability is especially true when our theological perspective is a minority view within the overall Body of Christ in the U.S. Among evangelical circles, the predominant theology is Calvinist, whereas Methodists take a Wesleyan/Arminian perspective on theology. A colleague who is a professor at Asbury Seminary has often remarked that Wesleyan/Methodist churches that go independent tend to become Calvinist in theology within a generation of their departure from a Wesleyan denomination. Doctrinal accountability can keep our churches faithful to a doctrinal perspective that is valuable and needed in the Body of Christ today.

In Africa, many freelance independent, non-denominational churches preach a prosperity Gospel. For churches there, being part of an established Wesleyan denomination can help guard against the adoption of heretical doctrines that are harmful to their members in the end.

Accountability

That leads us to the next value of denominations: a system of accountability for both doctrine and behavior. In order to be effective, accountability has to be broader than what an individual congregation or its leaders can provide. Yes, it should not have to be this way, but in our fallen, sinful condition, we have human blind spots and mixed motivations that prevent us from seeing problems or from acting on the problems we do see, especially when we are close to the situation.

Throughout my ministry, I have witnessed repeatedly a congregation victimized by pastoral leadership that transgresses the boundaries of Christian behavior. Christianity Today just produced a podcast series that chronicles the rise and fall of Mars Hill Church, a megachurch based in Seattle, Washington. The congregation grew from a small Bible study to a multi-site congregation with 15 locations in four states. Weekend attendance was over 12,000. Then the pastor, Mark Driscoll, and other leaders were accused of “bullying” and “patterns of persistent sinful behavior.” Within 18 months, that giant church ceased to exist. Ironically, Driscoll became pastor of another church and continues some of the same dysfunctional patterns.

One can reel off the names of other high-profile pastors and ministry leaders who for years perpetuated a pattern of life and ministry that was deceitful and destructive. Those with oversight responsibility were too close to the situation or the person to see the problems.

In Africa and other parts of the world, the pastor is sometimes given unbridled power in the congregation. Some bishops take advantage of their position for personal gain. The church becomes an environment where the leaders say what is right, rather than looking to Scripture and denominational policies and procedures. In such an atmosphere, pastors and church members alike can be harmed by arbitrary and dictatorial leadership. Denominational accountability is the only thing that can protect pastors and church members from harm.

Denominational accountability systems do not always work the way they are intended (as our own United Methodist Church’s failures in this regard testify). But at least there is a system of greater accountability that can be reformed and made more effective. I believe the system envisioned for the proposed Global Methodist Church enhances accountability and fairness in a way that addresses some of the shortfalls in our UM accountability system. Certainly, there is a much greater possibility of holding leaders and congregations accountable when that accountability comes from outside the situation. We are often much more able to see and respond to the sins and shortcomings of others than we are in ourselves or our own families.

The Power of Collective Action

The United Methodist Church is a small church denomination. Over 75 percent of the more than 30,000 congregations in the U.S. average fewer than 100 in worship attendance. Individually, small churches have limited resources to accomplish large projects. Collectively, however, churches working and contributing together can do great things for God. That is one area where The United Methodist Church has leveraged our connectional system to make a real-world difference in the lives of people all over the globe. When it comes to hunger relief, poverty alleviation, education, ministerial training, and health care to name just a few areas, the UM Church has been able to pool the resources of many small churches to achieve significant results.

It is possible for independent churches to join associations of churches or otherwise link to support missions and ministries they agree with. The value of doing so as a denomination is to have the confidence that the missions and ministries supported by the denomination are consistent with the denomination’s doctrinal and moral standards. A denomination can make a long-term commitment to a geographic area or a certain large project that can be sustained, despite the fact that individual congregations might have to drop their support for a time, as other congregations come on to make up the shortfall. There is a greater chance of consistency and effectiveness with denominational programs that have built-in oversight and accountability from outside (as mentioned earlier).

Providing Pastoral Leadership

One of the most important tasks of a denomination is to provide pastoral leadership to its congregations. The denomination vets and approves candidates for a pastoral position in terms of doctrine, skills, and personal lives. This is work that an independent congregation would have to do for itself, often without the expertise in personnel work and theology to make informed judgments. In the case of independent congregations, finding a pastor takes a number of months and often a year or more, during which time the congregation is without a pastor. Smaller congregations will attract fewer and less qualified applicants, whereas, in a denominational system clergy express their willingness to serve where needed.

Again, the United Methodist system of clergy placement is not perfect. Many appointments are good matches between congregation and pastor. Other times, the match is not good. Part of the reason for this mismatch is the guaranteed appointment, meaning all United Methodist clergy must be assigned a place to serve. The proposed Global Methodist Church will not have a guaranteed appointment, whereby clergy who are theologically incompatible or deficient in skills still receive an appointment to a church regardless. The GMC is also committed to more extensive consultation with both potential clergy and congregations to ensure the best possible match and to enable longer-term pastorates.

The important point is that, when done well, the denominational process can supply churches with quality, committed pastoral leaders who will help the congregation realize its potential. It can help guard against clergy who are doctrinally or personally unqualified to serve in leadership. The process can do most of the heavy lifting that would otherwise fall to inexperienced volunteers in the local congregation.

Practical Resources

What is a good curriculum for your church’s Sunday school? What would be a good Bible study on stewardship? How can we get our youth more involved in the life of the congregation? What outreach strategies might be effective in our community? What type of pension, health insurance, and property insurance should our church provide? How much should we pay our pastor?

The list of questions and decisions that a local church needs to deal with is endless. A denomination can give a local church the resources to address these questions. In some cases (like the pension and insurance question), the denomination can provide a program the local church can plug into that it could not duplicate on its own.

I am excited that the proposed GMC is already working through various task forces to identify and flesh out resources and ministry models that can help guide local churches into more effective ministry in many different areas. A denomination can provide those resources and guidance for local churches in a way that the local church can trust. Those resources will be theologically consistent with the denomination’s doctrine and philosophy of ministry. Those resources will be tried and proven as workable and practical. Each congregation will not have to reinvent the wheel, but can draw upon the pooled wisdom and resources that many churches being part of one denomination can provide. Having one place to turn for ideas and guidance will save time and energy at the local level that can be effectively directed into actual ministry.

Much more could be said about the benefits of being part of an effective denomination. Part of a brief childhood poem by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow speaks to our situation:

There was a little girl,

Who had a little curl,

Right in the middle of her forehead.

When she was good,

She was very good indeed,

But when she was bad she was horrid.

United Methodists have experienced some of the horrid aspects of being in a denomination that is dysfunctional and ineffective in some key ways. The temptation is to jettison the idea of a denomination entirely, believing that we can certainly do better on our own. That is a false temptation.

We are certainly better and more effective as churches and as individuals when we work together with like-minded believers. A denomination gives us the structure and the possibility of doing just that. Together, we can make our new denomination good and experience that it can be “very good indeed!”

British Methodism Adopts Progressive Sexuality Standards

by Steve | Jul 6, 2021 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter

Wesley’s Chapel, Methodist headquarters London, England ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ Photo courtesy of Creative Commons

 By Thomas Lambrecht –

On Wednesday, the British Methodist Church became the largest denomination in Great Britain to endorse same-sex marriage. The overwhelming vote follows the acceptance of an initial report in 2019, God in Love Unites Us, followed by two years of discussion across the church’s 30 districts.

According to the BBC , “the Methodist Church is Britain’s fourth largest Christian denomination with about 164,000 members across more than 4,000 churches.” (British Methodism is a totally separate denomination from The United Methodist Church.) Methodists represent only about two tenths of one percent of the British population, whereas United Methodists in the U.S. represent about two percent of the population. In offering same-sex marriage services, Methodism aligns with other relatively small denominations in Britain, such as the Scottish Episcopal Church, the United Reformed Church, and the Quakers.

The two largest denominations, the Church of England (more than 16,000 churches) and the Roman Catholic Church (3,700 churches), do not accept same-sex marriage. Methodism will also be out of step with other British denominations, such as Baptist, Pentecostal, Orthodox, House Churches, and independent congregations.

The Church Times quotes the adopted resolution as saying, “The Conference consents in principle to the marriage of same-sex couples on Methodist premises throughout the Connexion and by Methodist ministers, probationers or members in so far as the law of the relevant jurisdiction permits or requires and subject to compliance with such further requirements, if any, as that law imposes.”

In order to accomplish this goal, the Methodists adopted a new definition of marriage: “The Methodist Church believes that marriage is given by God to be a particular channel of God’s grace, and that it is in accord with God’s purposes when a marriage is a life-long union in body, mind and spirit of two people who freely enter it. Within the Methodist Church, this is understood in two ways: that marriage can only be between a man and a woman; that marriage can be between any two people. The Methodist Church affirms both understandings and makes provision in its Standing Orders for them.”

BBC reports, “Church officials hope the dual definition will persuade conservative churches not to leave and protect ministers from discrimination claims if they refuse to marry gay couples.” The newly elected President of the Conference, the Rev. Sonia Hicks, said in response to the vote, “The debate today and our wider conversation has been conducted with grace and mutual respect. As we move forward together after this historic day for our Church, we must remember to continue to hold each other in prayer, and to support each other respecting our differences.”

The Rev. Sam McBratney, chair of the Dignity and Worth campaign (a pro-LGBTQ advocacy group in the Methodist Church), said, “We reassure those who do not support this move that we want to continue to work and worship with you in the Church we all love.”

Living with Contradiction

In order to live together and “work and worship” together in one continuing church, the British Methodist Church had to adopt an inherently contradictory policy. It now has two definitions of marriage that are simultaneously in effect. The result is that the Methodists have no coherent definition of marriage. It can mean whatever its members want it to mean.

This tactic in attempting to maintain some sort of unity is common across the world among denominations that are changing their standards on marriage. Most see it as an interim step to allow the “conservatives” to eventually change their minds, leave the church, or die off, until the church can unify around the more progressive marriage stance.

However, some traditionalists in Britain will be unable to live with the contradiction. The BBC reports Carolyn Lawrence, a former vice-president of the Methodist Conference, warned there was a “significant minority” of Methodists who were “planning on leaving or resigning their membership” as a result of the vote. “Today is a line in the sand for many people and seen as a significant departure from our doctrine.”

Methodist Evangelicals Together, a renewal organization within the British Methodist Church, advocates for “the original Wesleyan evangelical vision and the biblical and apostolic understanding of marriage as the life-long union of one man and one woman and the only appropriate context for sexual intimacy.” They report, “Sadly, several members, Local Preachers and Ministers, and even entire congregations, have already left the Methodist Church [in Britain] over the direction of travel it has so far adopted. If the proposals are ratified at Conference 2021, there are likely to be many more who will feel conscience-bound to leave.” There has even been some preliminary interest in traditionalist British Methodists possibly becoming part of the Global Methodist Church when it forms after adoption of the Protocol.

Slippery Slope

While the changing definition of marriage made the headlines, the British Methodist also overwhelmingly adopted a resolution “to recognise, accept, and celebrate the love and commitment of unmarried cohabiting couples.” This action is the natural outgrowth of rejecting the clear witness of Scripture regarding the God-given boundaries for human sexuality.

Once one sets aside scriptural teachings about marriage and sexuality and substitutes human reasoning and feelings, there is no limit on what can be found acceptable or even affirmed. Whatever seems right to people will become the governing standard. For example, there is no reason in principle why marriage could not be expanded to include more than two people under this approach.

GCFA Endorses Non-Binary Gender Identity

Meanwhile, in The United Methodist Church, the General Council on Finance and Administration has voted to expand the data collected on annual church membership reports. Where members are classified as either male or female, a third option will be added – “non-binary.” This third category will encompass those who do not identify as either male or female.

According to United Methodist News Service, the change affects only churches in the U.S., as the church does not collect local church statistics for churches outside the U.S. However, GCFA will also request U.S. annual conferences to report the number of non-binary clergy in their annual records.

“The board made the change after hearing from U.S. annual conference treasurers who have responsibility for collecting membership data from local churches,” reports UMNS. “We are having issues reporting people with pastors calling our office and saying: ‘What do I do here?’” said Christine Dodson, North Carolina Conference treasurer and the GCFA board’s vice president. “Quite frankly, I’ve had a pastor tell me, ‘I’m not going to force a person to choose one or the other when they have told me how they identify.’”

Only one board member spoke against the proposal. “I’m appreciative of the recognition of all God’s people, but I am also cautious that we are making a decision that appears to affect less than half our global constituency,” said the Rev. Steve Wood, who is also lead pastor of Mount Pisgah United Methodist Church in Johns Creek, Georgia. “I’m just wondering if we are creating more angst than we are creating benefits, so I have to speak against it.”

GCFA may have thought of this change as merely an administrative accommodation to make pastors’ job easier. However, by making this change, GCFA has implicitly endorsed a theology of gender that appears at odds with the simple and basic scriptural witness: “male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27).

Admittedly, there is nothing in the Book of Discipline that speaks specifically to issues of gender identity. This topic is so new that it has not been adequately studied or addressed by the church. That is why it seems unwise for GCFA to make such an “administrative” change that represents a theological understanding that has not been thoroughly thought out.

The trajectory of the British Methodist Church and the easy acquiescence of GCFA to a progressive understanding of gender identity shows the potential direction a post-separation United Methodist Church is likely to take. The GCFA decision reflects how the regionalization of the church might work, with decisions made that apply to some parts of the church and not other parts. Those who are uncomfortable with such a direction, recognizing that it reflects a different understanding of scriptural authority and theology, will need to find a new home – hopefully in the Global Methodist Church (in formation).

What is Religious Freedom?

by Steve | Mar 26, 2021 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter

By Thomas Lambrecht –

Freedom of religion is often called the “first freedom” because it is the first provision mentioned in the United States Bill of Rights. Many scholars believe all the other freedoms depend upon the foundation of religious freedom to establish and perpetuate the values that will sustain the other freedoms. The First Amendment of our Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

The definition of religious freedom has been contested since the founding days of our country. It has most often been called into question when dealing with a minority religion, since the practices of minority religions are often not widely known or accepted by the majority of our citizens. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) was adopted in 1993 in response to a Supreme Court decision that allowed two Native American drug counselors to be fired because they used the drug peyote in their Native American religious rituals. Muslims, Sikhs, and other minority religions have also benefited from the guarantee of religious freedom in the U.S.

Religious freedom has become a hotly contested political issue in the U.S. in relationship to efforts to remove discrimination against LGBTQ persons. Famously, a baker who declined to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding as an expression of his religious convictions was protected under the RFRA law. Now in Congress a proposed new law, the Equality Act, would remove religious freedom protections for those who cannot affirm LGBTQ practices.

Defining Religious Freedom

A recent commentary by the Rev. David W. Key, Sr., an ordained Baptist religious historian, asserts “religious liberty protects our individual right to worship how we see fit.” This limiting of religious freedom to the “right to worship” came to prominence during the Obama presidency and was one of the issues that contributed to the election of President Trump in 2016.

The question is: Does the protection of religious freedom only apply to our ability to worship God in the way “we see fit,” or does it protect the freedom to live our lives as our religion teaches us?

The wording of the First Amendment espouses both a freedom from and a freedom for. We are to be freed fromhaving a religion imposed upon us in the form of a government established church or religion. We see this tendency today in the country of India, where the majority of the population believes that to be truly Indian, one must adopt the Hindu religion. Conversely, the amendment says we are to be freed for the exercise or practice of our religion of choice.

Does the practice or exercise of our religion stop when we walk out the church door? Or is it only what we do in private? That is what defining religious freedom as the right to worship requires.

Christianity and most other religions are not simply a way of worship, but a way of life. A religion is a value system that governs our thoughts and desires, promoting a way of living out that value system.

The Apostle Paul writes, “Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God – this is your spiritual act of worship” (Romans 12:1). He is not talking about human sacrifice in a worship service, but about living our lives for God as an act of sacrificial worship. The Apostle James writes, “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world” (James 1:27). Again, religion extends to how we live our lives, here in caring for the vulnerable.

According to a Christian definition of religion, our faith is expressed not just in worship, but in all of life, which is in effect an act of worship to the God who made us. It is nonsensical to think that one can in church worship the God who reveals himself to us through his word and then go out into the world to live in ways contrary to that same word. Jesus rightly called people who do that hypocrites. (Of course, we all struggle at times to be faithful to God’s will for us, but to live a consistent, God-honoring life is our goal.)

The Question of Discrimination

LGBTQ persons are created in the image of God. God loves them unconditionally, and so should we. There is no excuse for demeaning LGBTQ persons or treating them with anything less than the dignity and respect they merit as fellow human beings. Any kind of violence or insult directed at LGBTQ persons is unacceptable and ought to be resisted by Christians and all people of good will.

At the same time, the Equality Act is attempting to impose a belief system (a secular religion?) on all U.S. citizens. That perspective affirms virtually any kind of behavior – heterosexual or homosexual – between consenting adults and enables one to remake one’s gender in line with one’s feelings or self-understanding.

How does that belief system work out in particular areas of alleged discrimination?

Within a secular society, what a person does in their private lives does not affect one’s employment, so long as it does not infringe upon the law or harm the person’s employer. But religious organizations (not just churches, but schools, hospitals, missions, and others) do still expect their employees to reflect the values of the religious organization. Should the government force a Christian school to employ a partnered lesbian as a teacher if the same-sex relationship is contrary to the school’s religious beliefs?

The Christian tradition defines marriage as between one man and one woman. The secular state can define marriage however it chooses. But should the government force Christians to affirm and celebrate the state’s definition of marriage, even though it goes against Christian teaching?

Should the government force Christian adoption agencies to place children with unmarried or same-sex couples, even though such placements run counter to the agency’s values that married parents form the best foundation and example for the raising of children?

Necessary health care is a basic expression of human caring for others and ought not be withheld from anyone for any reason. Should the government force a Christian doctor to administer puberty blocking drugs to a 13-year-old who is confused about their gender and wants to transition to the gender opposite the one in which they were born, despite the doctor’s religious belief that gender is a reflection of God’s creative intent, not to be manipulated?

Should a Christian student group be barred from a college campus because, while it opens its membership to anyone who wants to attend, it insists that officers and leaders of the organization must share the group’s Christian beliefs?

All of the above questions stem from actual examples of Christian organizations that have been taken to court in order to enforce the government’s concept of non-discrimination. They represent conflicts between Christian beliefs founded on Scripture and long-standing tradition versus the government’s interest in promoting the equal treatment of all citizens.

People of good will can differ on how they would decide these difficult questions. I would simply point out that there are some instances where the concept of LGBTQ “equality” is in major conflict with a Christian understanding of sexuality and gender. While all persons, including LGBTQ persons, ought to be accorded their full human dignity and respect, it would be a violation of religious freedom for the government to impose upon all citizens a particular understanding of LGBTQ equality that requires the abandonment of long-standing and well-supported aspects of Christian religious doctrine.

The RFRA act would allow such imposition only in cases of compelling government interest and in the least restrictive way possible. The Equality Act would undo these protections to make possible a broader imposition of the government’s concept of equality and weaken the religious freedom guaranteed by our U.S. constitution. A proposed compromise law, called Fairness for All, is supported by some as a way of balancing these competing interests, preventing unlawful discrimination while protecting religious freedom. (The linked article provides helpful background information.)

To restrict religious freedom only to overt acts of worship is to miss the point behind religion in general and Christianity in particular. Christian faith is meant to transform lives in accord with God’s will for human flourishing. To substitute the government’s definition of human flourishing when it runs counter to Christian faith is, in effect, to impose another religion, a secular one, on Christians. Such a forced substitution would put Christians today in the position of the Apostles Peter and John when they stood before the Jewish Sanhedrin and said, “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God” (Acts 4:19). Our primary allegiance is, and always must be, to the true Lord of the universe, not to an earthly state.

Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.

The Real St. Patrick

by Steve | Mar 17, 2021 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter

By Steve Beard –

Photo: Saint Patrick Catholic Church (Junction City, Ohio) – stained glass, Saint Patrick

While sifting through obscure Spanish colonial records, it was discovered a few years ago that the very first St. Patrick’s Day parade was not conducted in Boston, Chicago, nor New York City.

Instead, the Irish feast day was celebrated in modern day St. Augustine, Florida, in 1601.

“They processed through the streets of St. Augustine, and the cannon fired from the fort,” said Prof. J. Michael Francis of the University of South Florida at St. Petersburg, who discovered the document. The ancient records named “San Patricio” as “the protector” of the area’s maize fields. “So here you have this Irish saint who becomes the patron protector of a New World crop, corn, in a Spanish garrison settlement,” he said.

This strange twist in the story and celebration of St. Patrick, a fifth century holy man, is really not that surprising. Historians are constantly attempting to set the record straight. After all, Patrick was not Irish (born in Britain of a Romanized family). He was never canonized as a saint by the Catholic Church. Interestingly, there are two St. Patrick’s Cathedrals in Armagh, Ireland – one Catholic and one Protestant. Saint Patrick’s Cathedral in Dublin is part of the Church of Ireland – with both Catholic and Protestant clergy.

The legacy of Ireland’s patron saint blurs a lot of lines – but, he is notably worth celebrating.

Patrick was brutally abducted at the age of 16 by pirates and sold as a slave in Ireland. For six agonizing years in a foreign land, he largely lived in abject solitude attending animals. The Christian faith of his family that he found unappealing as a teenager became his spiritual lifeline to sanity and survival while in captivity.

“Tending flocks was my daily work, and I would pray constantly during the daylight hours,” he writes in his Confession – one of only two brief documents authentically from Patrick’s own hand. “The love of God and the fear of him surrounded me more and more – and faith grew and the Spirit was roused, so that in one day I would say as many as a hundred prayers and after dark nearly as many again even while I remained in the woods or on the mountain. I would wake and pray before daybreak – through snow, frost, rain – nor was there any sluggishness in me (such as I experience nowadays) because then the Spirit within me was ardent.”

Through a divine dream, Patrick was inspired to make his escape. His journey as a fugitive was, according to his testimony, a 200 mile trek to the coast. Further miraculous circumstances allowed him to wrangle himself aboard a ship to escape his imprisonment in Ireland. He finally made it back to the loving embrace of his family.

Years later, however, another mystical dream launched his trajectory into the ministry and, ultimately, back to Ireland. “We appeal to you, holy servant boy,” said the voice in the dream, “to come and walk among us.”

For many years, he trained to become a priest. Eventually, in 432 A.D., Patrick returned to the shores of the land where he once was held captive.

“Believe me, I didn’t go to Ireland willingly that first time [when he was taken as a slave] – I almost died there,” he wrote in his Confession. “But it turned out to be good for me in the end, because God used the time to shape and mold me into something better. He made me into what I am now – someone very different from what I once was, someone who can care for others and work to help them. Before I was a slave, I didn’t even care about myself.”

Noted classics scholar Philip Freeman, author of St Patrick of Ireland, points out the distinguished uniqueness of Patrick’s public vulnerability – a trait that was not characteristic of a man of his stature and notoriety. As an elderly and well-known bishop, Patrick begins his Confession with these words: “I am Patrick – a sinner – the most unsophisticated and unworthy among all the faithful of God. Indeed, to many, I am the most despised.”

“The two letters are in fact the earliest surviving documents written in Ireland and provide us with glimpses of a world full of petty kings, pagan gods, quarreling bishops, brutal slavery, beautiful virgins, and ever-threatening violence,” writes Freeman. “But more than anything else, they allow us to look inside the mind and soul of a remarkable man living in a world that was both falling apart and at the dawn of a new age. There are simply no other documents from ancient times that give us such a clear and heartfelt view of a person’s thoughts and feelings. These are, above all else, letters of hope in a trying and uncertain time.”

While there are many beautiful, miraculous, and fantastical stories about St. Patrick, his Letter to the Soldiers of Coroticus – the other document authentically written by Patrick – exposes his heart and soul. It portrays the character of a man worthy of emulation and celebration. His humility, empathy, and righteous indignation scorches the letter as he takes up the cause of the voiceless captives and powerless victims of slavery – a common practice in the fifth century.

The fiery correspondence addresses the horrific news that a group of newly baptized converts were killed or taken into slavery on their way home by a petty British king named Coroticus, known to be at least nominally a Christian.

“Blood, blood, blood! Your hands drip with the blood of the innocent Christians you have murdered – the very Christians I nourished and brought to God,” Patrick writes. “My newly baptized converts, still in their white robes, the sweet smell of the anointing oil still on their foreheads – you murdered them, cut them down with your swords!”

Violating cultural and ecclesiastical protocols, the letter was sent broadly and caused a stir. Courageously, Patrick launched a public ruckus – outside his governance – over the “hideous, unspeakable crimes” because he believed that God truly loved the Irish – even if church leaders elsewhere did not. Patrick’s vision for the love of God was expansively generous. “I am a stranger and an exile living among barbarians and pagans, because God cares for them,” he writes (emphasis added).

“Was it my idea to feel God’s love for the Irish and to work for their good?” Patrick writes. “These people enslaved me and devastated my father’s household! I am of noble birth – the son of a Roman decurion – but I sold my nobility. I’m not ashamed of it and I don’t regret it because I did it to help others. Now I am a slave of Christ to a foreign people – but this time for the unspeakable glory of eternal life in Christ Jesus our master.”

Having been captive, he does not write about slavery whimsically. He was an outspoken voice opposing slavery at a time when it was simply considered commonplace. Furthermore, he was a fierce advocate for those who were most vulnerable and abused in captivity.

“But it is the women kept in slavery who suffer the most – and who keep their spirits up despite the menacing and terrorizing they must endure,” he writes in his Confession. “The Lord gives grace to his many handmaids; and though they are forbidden to do so, they follow him with backbone.”

When Patrick heard about the bloody attack and abductions after the baptism service, he sought to reason with Coroticus: “The very next day I sent a message to you with a priest l had taught from childhood and some other clergy asking that you return the surviving captives with at least some of their goods – but you only laughed.”

In response, Patrick derides Coroticus and his men as “dogs and sorcerers and murderers, and liars and false swearers … who distribute baptized girls for a price, and that for the sake of a miserable temporal kingdom which truly passes away in a moment like a cloud or smoke that is scattered by the wind.”

In order to make his point, he prays: “God, I know these horrible actions break your heart – even those dwelling in Hell would blush in shame.”

With pastoral care, Patrick addresses the memory of those killed after their baptism: “And those of my children who were murdered – I weep for you, I weep for you … I can see you now starting on your journey to that place where there is no more sorrow or death. … You will rule with the apostles, prophets, and martyrs in an eternal kingdom.”

Even in an inferno of justifiable rage, Patrick extends an olive branch of redemption: “Perhaps then, even though late, they will repent of all the evil they have done – these murderers of God’s family – and free the Christians they have enslaved. Perhaps then they will deserve to be redeemed and live with God now and forever.”

“The greatness of Patrick is beyond dispute: the first human being in the history of the world to speak out unequivocally against slavery,” writes historian Thomas Cahill, author of How the Irish Saved Civilization. “Nor will any voice as strong as his be heard again till the seventeenth century.”

All around the globe, March 17 is set aside to honor a great man who overcame fear with faith, overcame hate with love, and overcame prejudice with hope. Although he had every reason in the world to resist the dream to return to “walk among” the Irish, Patrick responded to the God-given impulse of his heart – even when it was most difficult. He knew the dangers and challenges and returned anyway.

Patrick offered himself as a living example of what new life could look like for the Irish. “It is possible to be brave – to expect ‘every day … to be murdered, betrayed, enslaved – whatever may come my way’ – and yet be a man of peace and at peace, a man without sword or desire to harm, a man in whom the sharp fear of death has been smoothed away,” writes Cahill of Patrick. “He was ‘not afraid of any of these things, because of the promises of heaven; for I have put myself in the hands of God Almighty.’ Patrick’s peace was no sham: it issued from his person like a fragrance.”

Happy St. Patrick’s Day.

Does Regionalization Replace Separation?

by Steve | Mar 12, 2021 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter

The Book of Discipline. A UMNS photo by Mike DuBose.

By Thomas Lambrecht –

There are two proposals that would change United Methodism by creating different regional versions in the various geographical areas of the church: Africa, Europe, the Philippines, and the U.S. One proposal is from the Connectional Table and the other is from a group of delegates from outside the U.S. called the Christmas Covenant.

I have written about the Christmas Covenant before in more detail. At present, the Christmas Covenant seems to be the version of regionalization most preferred by church leaders. It sets up the UM Church in the U.S. as its own regional conference and creates regional conferences in Africa, Europe, and the Philippines. Each regional conference (including in the U.S.) would have the ability to change any part of the denomination’s Book of Discipline that it wants to change, except for items that the church Constitution protects or items that are protected by a two-thirds vote of the General Conference.

There could be different standards for clergy in each regional conference, different requirements to which clergy and bishops would be held accountable, different methods of local church organization, and different criteria for church membership, to give just a few examples. Each regional conference would create a different version of United Methodism for that geographical area. Regional conferences could even give annual conferences the ability to create different standards and requirements, as well.

Proponents of regionalization say that the reason for this proposal is to allow United Methodism to adapt to the different ministry contexts found in each geographical area of the world. They say that a one-size-fits-all version of Methodism does not work. In addition, proponents state that central conference delegates are tired of dealing with reams of petitions at General Conference that pertain only to United Methodists in the U.S. They want to focus on global matters at General Conference and allow each region to work independently on matters germane to that region.

Importantly, some proponents insist that regionalization is not an attempt to resolve the church’s conflict over human sexuality, marriage, and ordination. Some contend that regionalization can be adopted along with the Protocol for Separation to resolve our conflict.

However, some proponents and other church leaders have seized on the idea that, if regionalization is adopted, separation would no longer be necessary, since each region in the church could adopt its own standards regarding sexuality, marriage, and ordination. Such an understanding fails to take into account the real dimensions of our church conflict.

Regionalization for the U.S.

First, it is important to understand that regionalization proposals would primarily benefit United Methodists in the U.S. Those in the central conferences outside the U.S. already have the power to change and adapt the provisions of the Book of Discipline to fit their ministry and legal context. The 2016 General Conference even moved in the direction of expanding that ability to adapt the Discipline. In light of the crisis point in our conflict, that expansion was put on hold but could easily be taken up again in the future.

U.S. United Methodists were not originally given the power to adapt provisions of the Discipline for two reasons. First, U.S. delegates were always in the overwhelming majority and still make up about 55 percent of the delegates. Second, there is no one unified U.S. conference, as the country is divided up into five jurisdictions. Giving each jurisdiction the authority to adapt the Discipline was seen as a bridge too far, creating too much diversity within one country. Besides, U.S. delegates were essentially writing the Discipline for their context, while giving non-U.S. United Methodists the ability to change what did not work in their settings. Giving the U.S. church the ability to adapt was unnecessary.

But things have changed and are changing. The U.S. percentage of the General Conference is at its lowest point ever. As Methodism in the U.S. continues to decline dramatically and Methodism in Africa continues to grow significantly, within eight to twelve years, U.S. delegates could be in the minority.

On top of that, the two-thirds of U.S. delegates that are centrists or progressives are being outvoted by the one-third of U.S. delegates that are traditionalists, along with traditionalists in Africa, Eurasia, and the Philippines. If the U.S. voted separately from the rest of the church, the centrists and progressives would overwhelmingly control the direction of the church in the U.S. But the voices of delegates outside the U.S., along with U.S. traditionalists, are setting the agenda for the global church. U.S. centrists and progressives disagree with that traditionalist agenda and can use regionalization to resist it.

Regionalization’s Impact on Marriage and Ordination

If the U.S. church is given the power to adapt the Discipline that the central conferences currently have, and if that power is expanded to cover more parts of the Discipline (as the Christmas Covenant envisions), the situation would change dramatically. The global definition of marriage as between one man and one woman could be changed to allow for same-sex marriage in the U.S. church. The global requirement that all clergy should be celibate in singleness or faithful in a heterosexual marriage could be changed to delete the word “heterosexual,” or the requirement for celibacy and faithfulness could be struck out altogether in the U.S. (as at least one petition to the 2020 General Conference proposes). The provision barring clergy from performing same-sex weddings could be removed in the U.S. The chargeable offenses holding clergy accountable on these matters could be scrapped in the U.S.

While some proponents of regionalization may see it primarily as a way to free General Conference from having to deal with matters strictly pertaining to the U.S., it would also allow the U.S. church to shift in a much more progressive direction. This progressive shift would affect not only the U.S. church’s teachings and standards on marriage and ordination; it would also affect how the church’s doctrinal standards are interpreted and what social or political statements the U.S. church would make on matters of public interest. One could expect the U.S. church to espouse more progressive politics than it currently does.

Regionalization vs. Separation

Traditionalists would not object to this kind of regionalization for the U.S. church after separation occurs. After all, many traditionalists would not remain in the UM Church after separation and would therefore have no standing to determine how the UM Church is governed after separation. In fact, the Protocol for Separation envisions “The Council of Bishops will call the first session of the General Conference of the post-separation United Methodist Church to organize itself and, if such legislation has not been passed, consider matters pertaining to the Regional Conference plan.”

However, traditionalists would strenuously object to regionalization as a substitute for separation.

The key point to remember is that our church’s conflict is not geographical, and a geographical solution does not resolve the conflict. That was the fatal flaw of the One Church Plan rejected by the 2019 General Conference.

There are traditionalist congregations and clergy in every annual conference in the U.S. and Western Europe, which regions might be expected to go progressive. There are progressive congregations and clergy in the Philippines and parts of Africa, which might be expected to go traditional. Allowing regionalization without a fair and practical exit path for congregations would simply exacerbate the conflict within these regions.

Creating the U.S. as a separate region of the church without allowing for separation would simply trap traditionalists in a centrist/progressive church, with no real recourse to withdraw, other than to leave behind buildings and assets. (The current exit path adopted by the 2019 General Conference is too expensive for most congregations, requiring seven to twelve years’ worth of apportionments as the fee to keep their buildings.) Under such a scenario, traditionalists are afraid that they would eventually be forced out of the church by the centrist/progressive conference leadership, so that the conference could keep the congregation’s building and assets to support the conference’s dwindling finances.

Some proponents of regionalization maintain that, while the U.S. church would change its stance on marriage and ordination, it would continue to welcome traditionalists to remain in the church. However, such hospitality could not be guaranteed. The Episcopal Church in the U.S. started out welcoming traditionalists to remain in that church after it changed its teachings, but now it appears that all parts of the church are expected to allow same-sex marriage and ordination of practicing LGBT persons, and its last traditionalist bishop has just resigned. If affirming same-sex relationships is truly a justice issue, which is how most centrists and progressives see it, they could not allow what they view as “discrimination” to continue indefinitely. Sooner or later, they would have to require same-sex marriage and ordination in all parts of the U.S. church.

Even now, given the way the election of jurisdictional delegates took place in 2019, there is no jurisdiction in the U.S. that is likely to elect a traditionalist bishop in the foreseeable future. Many progressive annual conferences refuse to ordain traditionalists as clergy. The track record of hospitality to traditionalists in progressive areas is not reassuring.

The regionalization plans, whether it is the Christmas Covenant or the Connectional Table Plan, should not be seen as a substitute for separation. Amicable separation is the only pathway that would truly end the church’s conflict and allow freedom of conscience on the part of all clergy and congregations, whether centrist, progressive, or traditionalist. General Conference delegates should defeat any attempt to enact regionalization without also enacting the Protocol for Separation.