by Good News | 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!”
by Good News | Aug 6, 2021 | In the News, July/August 2021, Perspective E-Newsletter
St. Paul preaching among the Roman ruins. Giovanni Paolo Panini /Hermitage Museum via Wikimedia Commons
By Thomas Lambrecht
As a declining denomination in the midst of cultural headwinds becoming increasingly hostile to Christianity, we wonder how to be a growing, vital church. Although I have served as a pastor and have been a member of growing congregations at one time or another, I have never in my church membership life been part of a growing United Methodist denomination. That is true of all active clergy in our church today.
Many programs have been tried and much ink spilled in trying to foster a denominational turnaround. The results, however, have been unsuccessful denomination-wide. Our decline is only accelerating as our church gets older. Certainly, the long-running conflict over theology and moral teaching has not helped.
As we think about a new traditionalist Methodist denomination that will no longer have conflict over doctrine and morals, how can we best approach our new societal situation, where Christianity is no longer privileged and the church as an institution is no longer respected?
In some ways, we are returning to the situation experienced by the early church in the first three centuries. Upon the recommendation of others, I have found the book The Patient Ferment of the Early Church by the late church historian Alan Kreider to be extremely helpful in unpacking the factors that led the early church to grow.
How the Early Church Grew
Growth in the early church after the first apostles’ generation died out was not primarily due to missions or evangelism. The seeds had been planted around the Mediterranean world, and they grew from there. Kreider summarizes, “According to the evidence at our disposal, the expansion of the churches was not organized, the product of a mission program; it simply happened. Further, the growth was not carefully thought through. Early Christian leaders did not engage in debates between rival ‘mission strategies.’ … The Christians … did not write a single treatise on evangelism. … [In] the best surviving summary of catechetical topics, … not one of them admonishes the new believers to share the gospel with the gentiles. Early Christian preachers do not appeal to the ‘Great Commission’ in Matthew 28:19-20 to inspire their members to ‘make disciples of all nations.’ … Most improbable of all, the churches did not use their worship services to attract new people. In the aftermath of the persecution of Nero in A.D. 68, churches around the empire … closed their doors to outsiders.”
In short, many of the strategies and programs we use today to grow the church played no role in the early Christian centuries up until the Emperor Constantine I began promoting Christianity in A.D. 313.
What caused the church to grow? Kreider identifies several factors. The primary factor he identifies is the “patient ferment” of the church – the bubbling up of spiritual life in the lives of believers that over time attracted tens of thousands of individual new believers, a few at a time, into the growing church.
This approach is summed up in a quote from the writer Cyprian (A.D. 256), “We do not speak great things but we live them.” As Kreider explains it, “Christians, said Cyprian, are to be visibly distinctive. They are to live their faith and communicate it in deeds, and their deeds are to embody patience. Patientia: when Christians make this virtue visible and active, they demonstrate the character of God to the world.” And it is this distinctive, lived-out faith that becomes attractive over time to people unfulfilled by the world’s pleasures and possessions.
The key is that “Christians and their communities must live a life of integrity with no discrepancy between words and deeds,” Kreider states. “Outsiders will judge the Christians not so much by what they say (most people won’t listen to them anyway) as by what they are and do.”
Early Church Examples
How did this work out in practice? According to Justin Martyr (about A.D. 150), it meant living out Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount. Be patient with others. Be servants to all. When struck on one cheek, turn to them the other (rather than taking revenge). If compelled to go one mile, go two. Do not be angry. Do not quarrel. As Justin put it, “Let your good works shine before men, that they as they see may wonder at your Father who is in heaven.”
In their business lives, Christians were to act with integrity. They were “to speak the unadorned truth about a product they were selling.” Perhaps it meant refusing to retaliate when mistreated by another businessperson. It could have meant refusing to engage in litigation in the law courts.
In an extremely licentious culture, Christians were committed to sexual purity. Justin “points to Christians in Rome ‘and in every nation’ who have repudiated adulterous glances,” avoided polygamy, and committed themselves to a lifelong Christian understanding of sexual restraint and fidelity. By embracing this new ethic, the early church attracted “to the faith an ‘uncounted multitude of those who have turned away from’” sexual licentiousness.
In a rigidly hierarchical society, Christians created a heterogeneous community of rich and poor, nobles, working class, and laborers, masters and slaves, men and women, older adults as well as children. They formed a new type of family that incorporated all its members, including those most despised by society, on an equal and integral basis.
In a society where 90 percent of the people were powerless, Christians experienced the power of God at work in their lives. Miracles were part of their regular experience through the exorcism of demons and the healing of disease. And the leaders of a church were just as likely to be slaves as to be wealthy.
In a society where “65 percent of the population lived close to or below the subsistence level” and it was often “every man for himself,” Christians were known for caring for their poor. As we see in the book of Acts, churches would collect money and donations to provide food and clothing to those in need.
In a brutal society where life was cheap, Origen (about A.D. 250) stipulated, “refusing to participate in ‘the taking of human life in any form at all’ was a basic Christian commitment.” Christians refused to retaliate. They opposed and undermined the gladiatorial games (one of the primary means of mass entertainment, like today’s football). They “said no to abortion or to putting unwanted infants to death by exposure.” And in the early years, this commitment ruled out Christians serving in the Roman legions.
Under persecution, Christians were often courageous. They were not afraid to suffer or die for their faith because they were assured of a heavenly reality following death. They were conscious that they were imitating Jesus, who also suffered and died. Their calmness in the face of persecution stunned and attracted unbelievers.
This countercultural lifestyle appealed to people who were unsatisfied or unfulfilled by the world’s way of living. It prompted questions and inquiries that led to sharing of “the reason for the hope that is within us” (I Peter 3:15). This led to joining a catechism class for an extended time of learning and preparation before one was baptized and received into the membership of the church. There is much more to Kreider’s thesis than I have been able to share here, but this aspect is instructive for how we can promote a growing and vital church.
The Wesleyan Example
John Wesley knew that lifestyle was as important as doctrine. That is why he put forward the General Rules for those joining the Methodist movement. “There is only one condition previously required of those who desire admission into these [Methodist] societies: ‘a desire to flee from the wrath to come, and to be saved from their sins.’ But wherever this is really fixed in the soul it will be shown by its fruits. It is therefore expected of all who continue [within the Methodist societies] that they should continue to evidence their desire of salvation” by doing no harm, doing good, and attending upon all the ordinances of God (the means of grace).
The General Rules are very specific about the kinds of behaviors that were expected of Methodists.
In a society where alcoholism was rampant, Methodists were expected to avoid “drunkenness: buying or selling spirituous liquors, or drinking them, unless in cases of extreme necessity.”
In a society where slaveholding was common, Methodists were expected to avoid “slaveholding; buying or selling slaves.”
In a society experiencing personal conflict and violence, Methodists were to avoid “fighting, quarreling, brawling, brother going to law with brother; returning evil for evil, or railing for railing.”
In a country where smuggling and the black market were a constant practice, Methodists were to avoid “buying or selling goods that have not paid the duty.”
In a society where ostentatious displays of wealth were expected, Methodists were to avoid “putting on of gold and costly apparel.”
In their personal lives, Methodists were expected to avoid “uncharitable or unprofitable conversation; particularly speaking evil of magistrates [government officials] or of ministers.” They were to avoid “such diversions as cannot be used in the name of the Lord Jesus” and “singing those songs, or reading those books, which do not tend to the knowledge or love of God.” They were to avoid “laying up treasure upon earth” or “borrowing without a probability of paying.”
In a time when Methodists were ridiculed and persecuted, they were expected to “do good, especially to them that are of the household of faith or [striving] to be; employing them preferably to others; buying one of another, helping each other in business, and so much the more because the world will love its own and them only.”
The distinctive lifestyle and countercultural expectations of Methodists was not a deterrent, but a positive factor in the growth of Methodism in its first century. When Methodism began to compromise with the world and try to blend in or “be relevant,” it began to plateau and decline in relation to the size of the population.
Implications for Today
Doctrine, what we believe as Christians, is highly important. But if our lives contradict our beliefs, the world will not be interested in what we say we stand for.
Evangelical Protestantism has become so fixated on the Reformation truth that we are saved by grace through faith, and not by works, that we have forgotten the necessity of living the life of faith. We spend much energy on getting people to say the “sinner’s prayer” or commit their lives to Jesus Christ (which is essential), but neglect to help disciples form their lives to live as Jesus did. We emphasize forgiveness and grace more than holiness. As someone has said, American Christianity is more American than Christian.
Of course, we cannot live the Christian life by human effort alone, and our ability to exhibit a holy character is not what saves us. We come to Jesus as we are, he accepts us as we are, he welcomes us into his family, and he offers us the chance to become like him. We depend upon the power of the Holy Spirit to truly transform our desires and affections, as we nurture our relationship with the Lord through prayer, study of God’s word, worship, spiritual fellowship, and the other means of grace. As we are transformed on the inside, our outward behavior will change. But our outward behavior is an indicator of the extent of our inner transformation.
Our churches will not grow until people see that following Jesus Christ makes a difference in our lives. We must stop trying to blend in to the culture and instead be willing to live counter to the culture as Christians. Authentic Christians down through history have always been thought “strange” by an unbelieving world. We ought not to shy away from high expectations for how we as Christians are to live and act.
Evangelism programs and missional strategies are good and helpful. But people will not buy what we are selling unless they see that it works in making our lives different and more fulfilling than theirs. Otherwise, why make the sacrifices that being a Christian entails?
by Good News | Jul 30, 2021 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
 Lone Joshua Tree in the California desert. Photo by Thibault Ulbrich (Shutterstock). By Thomas Lambrecht –
Let’s just acknowledge that The United Methodist Church is in a wilderness. In his book, A Way through the Wilderness, my colleague the Rev. Rob Renfroe writes, “In the Scriptures, wilderness is used to describe a time in a person’s life when his or her soul is parched and dry; when today is hard and the future appears barren; when as far as you can see there is nothing but devastation, and you wonder if you’ll find a way out.”
With the postponement of General Conference, decisions about the future of the church are on hold. The Covid-19 pandemic has dramatically impacted church ministry. The ongoing and accelerating decline of membership and attendance in United Methodism in the U.S. increases the uncertainty – will the people who stopped coming to church during the pandemic ever return? The future is uncertain, and the present is just plain hard. Add to that situation places where traditionalists are berated, ostracized, or even outright persecuted in our own church! There are days when the situation seems hopeless, when it seems like General Conference will never be held, and when it seems like the Protocol will never be adopted or the proposed Global Methodist Church formed.
The Israelites experienced the wilderness after they had left Egypt and before they reached the Promised Land of Israel. Designed to be a several-month experience of preparation, their wilderness experience turned into 40 years of waiting and wandering. (At least so far, our wilderness experience is only supposed to last 2-1/2 years!)
Renfroe explains, “The wilderness is that time when we learn the lessons that God has to teach us ‘old school’ – that is, through suffering and persevering and trusting in a God whose plan we cannot comprehend and whose presence we may not feel. But there’s no school like old school, and there’s no place like the wilderness for growing in faith. In spite of its pain – actually, because of its pain – the wilderness is a place of great opportunity. It’s where God can teach us life’s most important lessons.”
Why the Wilderness?
As Renfroe reminds us, “God uses the wilderness to prepare his people. God uses the difficult, desperate times of our lives to teach us important lessons and develop our character, making us into the image of his Son, so that we will be ready for the future and equipped to be his instruments in a hurting and broken world.”
God used the wilderness to transform the Israelites from a people who knew only generations of slavery into a united nation, equipped to take the Promised Land and live as God’s chosen people, glorifying him through their faithfulness and obedience. In the same way, traditionalists are being prepared during this in-between wilderness for the decisions that will form a new Methodist denomination. We will need to form a new cohesive community and a new identity.
Renfroe teaches that the wilderness prepares us to receive God’s blessing and to engage in the spiritual battles that lie ahead. For the Israelites, the “land of milk and honey” could only be possessed through warfare that conquered the land. Traditionalists face many spiritual battles in the months and years ahead in order to realize the dream and vision of a Methodist church that is wholeheartedly faithful to Scripture and exhibiting Christ’s love in a culture that is growing more hostile to God’s ways.
The Israelites thought their wilderness would last only a few months. They never dreamed it would take 40 years to get through. Traditionalists thought that the 2019 General Conference had resolved our conflict, only to find out more wilderness times lay ahead. The end date of our wilderness has repeatedly moved. But short time or long, the important thing is to learn the lessons God has for us in the wilderness. Sometime, we can get so focused on getting out of the wilderness that we get nothing out of being in the wilderness.
Playing the Blame Game
According to Renfroe, we can wind up in a wilderness because of our own choices and actions, because of the actions and choices of others, through the natural flow of life’s changes, or because it is God’s plan for us. One of our favorite pastimes in the wilderness is to try to figure out why we’re here. Who’s to blame for us being in this unpleasant and difficult situation?
With regard to our United Methodist situation, it is not productive for us to play the blame game. It only ends up distracting us from focusing on what we need to learn and do during this in-between time. Blaming others or even God for putting us in this position alienates us from the very resources we need to survive and thrive in the wilderness.
I’m sure Joshua and Caleb were tempted to be angry and blame the rest of the leaders for discouraging the people from entering the Promised Land, delaying their own entry by a whole generation. If the Israelites hadn’t been so fearful, Joshua and Caleb would have been building their houses and establishing their families in their new towns 40 years before it actually happened! It’s tempting for some traditionalists to blame traditionalist leaders for not doing more to “fix” the situation we are in and to enable us to move forward into a new reality. If only traditionalist leaders were more aggressive, or took legal action, or issued ultimatums, or did this strategy or that strategy, we would be out of the wilderness by now! We need to recognize that everyone is doing the best they can under very challenging circumstances, and that we all seek the same goal. It’s easy to be an armchair quarterback, but blaming others distracts us from getting the most out of this wilderness experience.
What We Can Learn
As Renfroe points out, God’s overarching goal is to form in us the character of Jesus. WWJD is more than just a slogan – it should be the aim of our lives to live as Jesus lived. “This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did” (I John 2:5-6). The pressure of the wilderness can reveal more readily those areas of our lives and character that are not fully submitted to the Lord. This pressure test can help us identify where we need to grow in our Christian walk.
The wilderness can teach us the importance of brothers and sisters who can walk through the wilderness with us. We cannot survive the wilderness alone. One of the primary actions we can take during this wilderness time is to forge connections with other traditionalists at both the personal and congregational level. If we are going to be in a new church together, we can start living into that reality right now. Identify other traditionalist clergy and congregations and work to connect with them. Support and encourage each other. Dream together what ministry might look like in the Promised Land.
The wilderness can help us work on forgiveness. Many of us have been hurt by others in this struggle for the soul of our church – both “enemies” and friends. We need to release those hurts through forgiveness in order to be ready for what comes next. We don’t want to carry the burden of anger or bitterness into the new denomination. Forgiveness is a process, and the wilderness is designed to help us through that process of letting go.
At the same time, the wilderness can teach us to let go of the right to judge or correct those who oppose and criticize us. We don’t have to be responsible for correcting those who disagree with us. God can handle that. We are called to be faithful to God and his word in our teaching and in our lives. There may be times when we need to correct misinformation that is spread about us. But we are not called to change other people’s minds. That actually takes the pressure off of us. We can winsomely present the truth of God’s word as we see it and then let it be between the other person and God. The Holy Spirit is the one who convicts us of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment (John 16:5-11). Let’s not usurp the Holy Spirit’s job!
The wilderness can teach us the importance of deepening our relationship with the Lord. When everything else we lean on is taken away, God is there with us and for us. Despite appearances to the contrary and despite adverse circumstances, we can move forward with confidence that God is guiding our steps and will lead us to the destination he has for us. This is what real faith is about – not just articles of belief, but living in complete dependence upon the Lord.
That means not neglecting what we call the spiritual disciplines. In the wilderness, even when we don’t feel like it, we have to eat the spiritual food God prepares for us. We can pray and read the Bible daily. We can join our Christian family in worship at least weekly. We can share our lives and struggles with fellow believers. We can avail ourselves of Christian books, podcasts, and sermons. We can do what we can to nurture the flame of the Spirit who lives within us. God will do the rest.
Forty years ago, it was popular to focus on the imminent return of Christ. One line from a song popular at the time is, “I wish we’d all been ready.” The wilderness time we are going through right now is our chance to get ready. It has been a blessing to the many who are forming the skeleton and flesh of a new denomination, so that it will be ready for us to occupy when the Protocol is adopted. But it can also be a blessing to our congregations and to each one of us individually, that we can allow God to prepare our hearts for the battles and blessings that lie ahead. Let’s not waste this opportunity to learn what God has for us.
If you are interested in exploring how to survive and thrive in your own personal wilderness, I highly recommend Rob Renfroe’s book, A Way through the Wilderness . The book and small group study resources are available on Cokesbury and Amazon.
|
|
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
|
|
by Good News | Jul 23, 2021 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter, Press Releases, WCA
 By Thomas Lambrecht –
The Rev. Jay Therrell, president of the Florida regional chapter of the Wesleyan Covenant Association, surrendered his credentials as an ordained elder on July 8. He did so because of requirements that had been placed upon him by the conference board of ordained ministry that were inconsistent with the Book of Discipline and violated the policies of the Florida WCA. (Therrell was on leave of absence in order to serve as the Florida WCA president.)
Therrell gives a complete account of how the situation came to this point in a recent blog. The blog includes copies of the board of ordained ministry’s requirement letter and Therrell’s response to Bishop Ken Carter.
Essentially, both the bishop and the board of ordained ministry had been working over the past year to gain access to the names of the churches and leaders with whom Therrell had been in conversation about the Protocol of Reconciliation and Grace through Separation and the options available to churches under the Protocol. It became apparent that Florida UM leaders wanted to monitor the content that Therrell was sharing with the churches and leaders.
In addition, pastors were fearful that they could be punished for allowing information to be shared and options discussed in their local churches. Licensed local pastors (unordained clergy) are particularly vulnerable, since a bishop can withdraw their appointments at any time for any reason, and district committees on ordained ministry can decline to renew their license for ministry at any time and for any reason.
As we have seen in other annual conferences, when licensed local pastors are proactive in sharing information with their congregations, conference officials sometimes remove them summarily from ministry. Basically, they are fired for doing what good pastors do in helping their churches stay informed and be proactive in planning for the future. We have also seen even ordained traditional clergy moved to a new appointment simply for sharing information with their congregations.
The board of the Florida WCA chapter had determined to protect the identity of those churches and leaders who consulted with Therrell. They did this to protect vulnerable clergy from being fired and to allow churches to explore options and receive information without the threat of the annual conference closing their church (something that has happened in other annual conferences).
Despite repeated requests over a year’s time from the bishop and district superintendents for this sensitive information, both Therrell and the Florida WCA board refused to disclose it. In fact, the attempt to muzzle Therrell began before he even became president of the Florida chapter. Therrell was forced to resign from the Florida cabinet in 2020 because the bishop wanted to forbid him from working on helping to create what became known as the Global Methodist Church in Florida. At the time of his resignation, Therrell was asked to sign a covenant restricting his ability to speak with other clergy or laity about a proposed new traditionalist denomination. Therrell declined.
The Ultimatum
In June of this year, the Florida board of ordained ministry gave Therrell an ultimatum: report the required sensitive information or (it was implied) run the risk of having charges filed against him for disobedience to the order and discipline of The United Methodist Church. The board imposed three requirements:
1. Provide a “full and complete list of all ministerial activities performed while on leave… [including] the dates and locations for all past and henceforth meetings with United Methodist clergy and laity,” whether on church-owned or non-church-owned property.
2. Obtain permission from the district superintendent for any meeting to be held with UM clergy or laity as president of the Florida WCA.
3. Video record all gatherings with Florida UM clergy and laity, with the recording to be given to the district superintendent and the board of ordained ministry.
These requirements would have ended Therrell’s ability to serve in the role of Florida WCA president because all of the district superintendents would have denied permission for Therrell to meet with anyone. The requirements would have exposed vulnerable clergy and congregations to potential punitive action by the Florida bishop and cabinet and would have had a chilling effect on the ability of Florida UM churches to gain information and consider options in light of the Protocol.
The board of ordained ministry’s rationale from the Discipline for these requirements was that they constitute “ministerial activities” that must be reported to the board. Meeting with clergy and laity to inform them about the Protocol was considered “giving guidance, training, and equipping to laity,” which is a ministerial activity. Raising funds was also considered a ministerial activity. Because Therrell was on personal leave of absence in order to serve as the Florida WCA president, the Discipline prohibits him from conducting any ministerial activities outside of the local church where he holds membership, unless the bishop or district superintendent gives permission.
Through a Pharisaical application of the provisions of the Discipline, the board of ordained ministry prohibited Therrell from serving as Florida WCA president while also being an ordained clergy. Activities that any layperson could do – holding informational meetings, writing articles, and raising funds – suddenly became impossible for Therrell to do as an ordained elder. That left him no choice but to surrender his ordination credentials in order to continue serving in the position to which he believed God had called him.
Hypocrisy?
Florida’s attempts to muzzle Therrell are unprecedented. No other district superintendent coming off the cabinet and going on personal leave was prohibited from meeting with clergy and laity in the conference. No other person on leave of absence was required to report all meetings held with clergy and laity, much less video record them and give those recordings to the cabinet and board of ordained ministry.
According to Therrell, the same executive committee of the board of ordained ministry that imposed these outrageous requirements on Therrell allowed an ordained elder who is a lesbian married to another woman to return from leave of absence and be transferred to a conference in the Western Jurisdiction, where she would not face charges under the Discipline. This was done in secret without the involvement of the full board of ordained ministry, and the required interview with the board was even waived. Failure to file a complaint for such a clear violation of the Discipline, while holding Therrell to a standard not even the Discipline envisions, smacks of a double standard. As Therrell says in his letter to Bishop Carter, “If an elder is progressive and violating the Discipline, they are given great latitude. If an elder is a traditionalist and conducting lawful activities that promote the current official stance of The United Methodist Church, they are harassed endlessly.”
Throughout his involvement on the Commission on a Way Forward and since the 2019 General Conference, Bishop Carter has promoted the idea that we should interact with each other with a heart of peace, rather than a heart of war. Unfortunately, with its continued harassment and opposition to Therrell, the Florida conference leadership, including Bishop Carter, has not exhibited a heart of peace. Punitive actions, the attempt to prohibit information sharing, striving to control the messaging, all demonstrate a win-lose attitude that only heightens conflict. The motivation of Florida UM leaders, like those in some other annual conferences, seems to be to use any and every strategy to keep as many churches as possible from joining the proposed new Global Methodist Church. The power and agency of laity is being disregarded and their ability to choose to meet with persons to learn about the new Global Methodist Church is being compromised.
The way forward for The United Methodist Church is not to be found in heightened confrontation and conflict. Instead, it is to be found in mutual respect, transparent leadership, and facilitating individual congregational and membership choice. The whole point of the Protocol is to provide a fair and amicable way for United Methodists to decide whether they want to continue being part of a Methodist church that is evolving away from Scriptural Christianity and toward cultural affirmation, or whether they want to be part of a Methodist church that maintains the bedrock doctrines of the Christian faith and a traditional understanding of marriage and sexuality.
Therrell can continue his role as Florida WCA president, working for a new traditionalist Methodist church, now without the hindrance and harassment of Florida conference leaders. When the Global Methodist Church forms, he will be able to receive ordination in that new denomination and serve in pastoral leadership. Still, his costly stand for integrity and faithfulness to the Gospel is an example for all of us to follow. We salute all such clergy, some of whom have lost their livelihoods and others forced through the upheaval of an unplanned (and sometimes punitive) move to a new church.
There are definitely some parts of the church where the theological conflict is causing casualties. We hope and pray that cooler heads will prevail. Such internecine warfare does not serve the Kingdom of God or the mission of the church. Power plays and punishment for theological differences do not build a healthy church. These situations simply demonstrate yet again how necessary the Protocoland separation really are. We continue to urge its support by all fair-minded General Conference delegates.
|
|
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
|
|
by Good News | 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).
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.
