by Steve | Jul 17, 2020 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
Graphic is a screenshot from the Congo Central Conference Facebook page.
By Thomas Lambrecht –
The polarization of The United Methodist Church in the United States is now unfortunately surfacing in the part of the church located in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) – one of at least 17 countries on the continent of Africa to host United Methodist churches. There are 3 million United Methodists in DRC – the largest contingent of Methodism outside the United States.
At last count, there were roughly 6.6 million United Methodists in North America, 5.9 million in Africa, and 200,000 in the Philippines and Europe.
Actions have been taken by two of the four bishops and annual conference boards in the Congo to penalize pastors and lay leaders who are working to promote faithfulness to traditional doctrines and moral teachings. These penalizing actions were taken contrary to the processes required by our Book of Discipline and violated the rights of the persons penalized. Complaints have been filed against the church authorities for these improper actions, but so far, the complaints have been either ignored or no remedy has been provided.
UM Church in the Congo
The primary languages of United Methodists in Congo are French and Kiswahili, which often presents a challenge in communicating with their English-speaking brothers and sisters. In addition, DRC is the same size as the U.S. east of the Mississippi, but with less than 1,000 miles of paved roads, an indicator of the extreme poverty of the country, which naturally affects the church and its ministry there.
The Congo Central Conference has four bishops: Bishop Gabriel Unda (Eastern Congo), Bishop Kasap Owan (Southern Congo and Zambia), Bishop Daniel Lunge (Central Congo), and Bishop Mande Muyombo (North Katanga). Bishop Unda was elected in 2013 and is the president of the Congo College of Bishops. The other three bishops were elected in 2017.
Bishop Kasap is the only bishop of the four who has declared his strong support for the Wesleyan Covenant Association and for the traditionalist position on church doctrine and teachings on marriage and sexuality. The other three bishops supported the “One Church Plan” at the 2019 General Conference in St. Louis, urging their delegates not to vote for the “Traditional Plan” that eventually passed. Reports from delegates, however, indicate that delegations generally voted contrary to their bishops’ advice, which has engendered conflict both within and between the episcopal areas in the Congo.
This Perspective will address some of the actions occurring in Central Congo under Bishop Lunge.
Nicolas Munongo
Nicolas Munongo is a layperson in the West Congo Annual Conference of the Central Congo Episcopal Area who at one time served as a trusted assistant to Bishop Lunge. Because Munongo became aware of some allegations against Bishop Lunge that cannot be made public at this time, Bishop Lunge suspended Munongo as a church member and removed him from his position as assistant. Munongo had also attended a meeting where he heard about the Traditional Plan and became a supporter of that plan, which further angered Lunge and his supporters.
After the 2019 General Conference, Munongo continued to promote the traditional perspective among clergy and lay leaders in Central Congo. When Bishop Muyombo (North Katanga) visited Central Congo and told one of the pastors, Henriette Okele, not to associate with Bishop Kasap (Southern Congo and Zambia) and the conservatives, Munongo reported that information to Kasap. When Kasap confronted Muyombo, he became angry and complained to his ally, Bishop Lunge. Lunge instituted proceedings against Munongo, a layperson, by the West Congo Annual Conference Board of Ordained Ministry. The Board held a hearing without any notice to Munongo and, in his absence, accused Munongo of making “defamatory, derogatory and insulting remarks” about Bishops Muyombo, Lunge, and Unda, designed to “create an unhealthy climate and lead to the division of the Central Conference of Congo and the College of Bishops.”
The Board of Ordained Ministry removed Munongo from his membership in the church as a layperson and forbade him “from performing any act in the name and on behalf of the East Congo Conference of the United Methodist Community in the Central Congo both inside and outside its bodies” and threatened legal action if Munongo failed to comply.
Apart from whether or not Munongo did anything wrong, there are many problems with how the bishop and annual conference handled this situation. First and foremost, neither the bishop nor the Board of Ordained Ministry has any authority to suspend or remove from membership a layperson. The only way a layperson can be penalized is through the complaint and trial process, which was not followed in this instance and over which the Board of Ordained Ministry has no jurisdiction. No formal complaint was filed against Munongo. No supervisory process was held. No trial was held. There was no attempt at a negotiated resolution of the problem. The bishop and annual conference violated Munongo’s rights as guaranteed by the Book of Discipline to fair process and trial. Instead, an arbitrary and punitive action is attempting to deprive Munongo of his membership in the church in an effort to discredit him due to his difference of opinion with the bishop over the Traditional Plan.
The Rev. Louis Loma Otshudi
The Rev. Louis Loma is a pastor in the West Congo Annual Conference. The Board of Ordained Ministry, without the filing of a written complaint, supervisory process, or trial, suspended him in October 2019. He was accused of “defaming” the bishop on social media (WhatsApp). (Loma had criticized Bishop Lunge for supporting the One Church Plan, advocating instead for the Traditional Plan.) Loma was also accused of being part of a “divisionist” group in Central Congo. (Loma identifies as a “conservative” in line with the current position of the Book of Discipline and spoke out against a group of progressive persons who came from the U.S. to meet with leaders in Central Congo.)
Again, regardless of whether Rev. Loma did anything wrong, the process of the Book of Discipline was not followed. There was no formal complaint filed against Loma. There was no supervisory response by the bishop, only a meeting by the Board of Ordained Ministry, of which no notice was given to Loma and no opportunity provided to Loma to rebut or present evidence. No trial was held. Under the Discipline, the Board of Ordained Ministry could only suspend Loma if a complaint was being processed, and then only for 90 to 120 days with pay. Instead, Loma has been suspended without pay for nearly nine months with no complaint or charges being filed. Loma has no recourse in this situation, since a trial was never held and therefore, he cannot appeal the decision. (Additionally, no appeal would have been possible because the Congo Central Conference has elected no central conference committee on appeals.) The Board of Ordained Ministry has violated Loma’s fair process and constitutional rights guaranteed by the Book of Discipline.
The Rev. Henriette Okele
The Rev. Henriette Okele is a pastor in the East Congo Annual Conference. On April 2, the Board of Ordained Ministry suspended her because she attended a meeting of African leaders in Johannesburg, South Africa. The meeting was sponsored by the Africa Initiative, a group formed by African leaders to equip and promote the voice of African United Methodists within the larger denomination. The purpose of the meeting was to explain the provisions of the “Protocol” and its implementing legislation regarding the possible separation of the church and to hear the feedback from African leaders regarding the “Protocol.” (The African Initiative issued a statement following the meeting endorsing the “Protocol” and urging several amendments to it.)
Because Okele attended the meeting without the permission of her superintendent and bishop, and because the meeting “was accompanied by resolutions tending to the division of the United Methodist Church,” she was suspended. The letter of suspension further said that her suspension was “without appeal.”
There is nothing in the Discipline that allows bishops or superintendents to forbid clergy from attending meetings of church leaders for the purpose of understanding issues and proposals coming before the church. This claim of power by Bishop Lunge and other African bishops is an attempt to keep their people uninformed about what is happening in the church. By controlling all the information that is reaching their people, the bishops hope to control what the African church decides to do in response to the actions of General Conference.
Again, the process with Okele violated every aspect of the Discipline’s requirements. No formal complaint was filed against her. There was no supervisory process or attempt to negotiate a just resolution. No trial was held. The Board of Ordained Ministry did not have the authority to suspend Okele at all, let alone without pay. It cannot deprive her of the right of trial and appeal, which is guaranteed by the Restrictive Rules of our church Constitution.
No Recourse
Because of all the violations of fair process and constitutional rights, Munongo, Loma, and Okele appealed to Bishop Lunge to reverse the decisions and require the Boards of Ordained Ministry to handle the situation according to the requirements of the Discipline. Bishop Lunge ignored their appeal.
Therefore, Munongo filed a complaint against the chair of the Board of Ordained Ministry for disobedience to the order and discipline of the church. Bishop Lunge ignored his complaint and declined to process it, refusing even to meet with him and instructing his aides not to allow him in the conference office or to receive any mail from him.
Finally, Munongo filed a complaint against Bishop Lunge for disobedience to the order and discipline of the church for failing to process his previous complaint. The complaint against Lunge went to Bishop Unda as the president of the Congo College of Bishops. In response to the complaint, Bishop Unda met with Munongo, Loma, and Okele and suggested that they should apologize to Bishop Lunge and ask forgiveness. Since they had done nothing wrong, they declined to apologize. Bishop Unda at that point refused to process the complaint, saying that he could not “interfere” in the affairs of another annual conference.
We have heard this line of reasoning from other bishops, who are unwilling to hold a fellow bishop accountable because it would be considered “interference.” Such reasoning is completely contrary to the Wesleyan and Methodist understanding of mutual accountability. It creates an Anglican or Roman Catholic idea of “diocesan bishops,” where each bishop is essentially a law unto themselves in their own diocese. In contrast, United Methodist bishops are general superintendents, having oversight of the whole church, not just their particular annual conference. In Methodism, bishops, clergy, and laity are supposed to be accountable to each other, for the sake of growing in holiness and for the good of the whole church.
We have also seen other instances where a college of bishops refuses to prosecute a complaint against a fellow bishop. It has happened in Africa before and in the Western Jurisdiction. This failure of accountability gives the appearance of episcopal dictatorship and the variations of practices from one annual conference to another that makes the United Methodist identity virtually meaningless.
The practical result of this lack of accountability is the victimization of pastors and laity who dare to think or speak differently than their bishop in some annual conferences. The heavy-handedness and distortions of the truth end up victimizing the whole church. When the Book of Discipline is no longer followed, we are no longer living in a faithful church, but in a church that is subject to the whims and proclivities of its leaders.
These three individuals in the Central Congo episcopal area have no recourse for the injustice that has been done to them. They are deprived of position and livelihood without due process and in violation of their rights as clergy and lay members of the church. The last hope is that the Council of Bishops would step in and intervene in the complaint against Bishop Lunge. But given the reluctance of bishops to “interfere” with a fellow bishop, that kind of intervention is unlikely.
It is this type of violation of the Discipline and the lack of accountability that is causing the separation of The United Methodist Church. The story told in this Perspective is but one example of the kind of malaise that has afflicted our church. When accountability becomes impossible, the only solution is to start over. A new traditional Methodist church will have a more robust accountability mechanism for bishops at the global level. Bishops will be expected to follow the Discipline or face accountability. Those unwilling to live by the Discipline of the church will be unable to align with that new denomination.
Our denominational identity should mean something. Without accountability, we have no identity as a church. If we stand for anything, we end up standing for nothing. If the plan of separation passes the next General Conference, we will have the opportunity to choose what we will stand for.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Jul 13, 2020 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
By Thomas Lambrecht –
Screenshot from the “virtual” annual session of the California-Pacific Conference.
The current focus of our denomination is rightly on how to do effective ministry in the midst of a pandemic and how to understand and address racism in our nation and in our church. For most of our pastors and leaders, there is not much bandwidth left to keep abreast of denominational conflicts.
Unfortunately, the conflicts besetting the denomination have not gone away since the 2020 General Conference was postponed until 2021. Rather than honor a spirit of unity with patience before next year’s gathering in Minneapolis, where a new expression of Methodism can be launched, there are decisions made by progressive leaders that continue to sow division within our denomination regarding marriage and sexuality.
Annual Conferences
For example, at this year’s “virtual” gathering of the California-Pacific Annual Conference, the ordination service was conducted in front of an enormous “Reconciling Ministries Network” banner in the sanctuary of the First United Methodist Church of Pasadena. For those watching online, it gave the appearance that the ordination service was being conducted under the guidance of a singular advocacy caucus rather than a worldwide denomination.
In the Mountain Sky Annual Conference, clergy were invited to a “Zoom” webinar entitled: “Let’s Talk: LGBTQ+ Weddings” set for July 15 by the “United Methodist Association of Retired Clergy & Friends” (UMARC). According to the promotional material, the Rev. Harvey Martz, vice chair of the UMARC, declares, “Perhaps there is no better way to repent for past pastoral malpractice than to intentionally reach out to the LGBTQ community, acknowledging past sins, and instituting inclusive wedding policies in our local churches.”
Rather than respecting the fact that there are deeply held, Scriptural beliefs regarding same-sex unions, which are also enshrined in the Discipline as official church policy, these convictions are dismissed as “pastoral malpractice.”
Church Agencies
The General Commission on Religion and Race (GCORR) celebrated Pride Month in June, calling upon the church to “consider the impact of intersectionality,” a “paradigm that addresses the multiple dimensions of identity and social systems as they intersect with one another and relate to inequality (such as racism, genderism, heterosexism, ageism, and classism).” The principle of intersectionality supposes that all forms of discrimination are related, and one must combat them all in order to make progress against any form of discrimination.
“Genderism” is the belief that there are two genders, male and female, not a range of “gender identities.” “Heterosexism” is the belief that heterosexuality is humankind’s God-given manner of experiencing sexual relations. Rather than being harmful discrimination, these two “isms” have been part of our Judeo-Christian understanding of marriage and sexuality for over 3,500 years. Importantly, neither the Bible nor the Church condemns persons who experience gender dysphoria or non-heterosexual attractions. It is when we act on these feelings, inclinations, or temptations that we contravene God’s will.
The primary task of GCORR is to combat racism. That is a task that all United Methodists should affirm. There is a solid basis in both the Bible and the Book of Discipline for upholding equality and fairness for all persons, regardless of race or ethnicity.
But when the agency tasked primarily with overcoming racism instead celebrates and promotes the affirmation of LGBT behavior, that agency violates church policy and forfeits much of its credibility. Both the Bible and our Book of Discipline are clear: we love and affirm every person as created in the image of God, with infinite value and worth. At the same time, we acknowledge certain behaviors as contrary to God’s will for human flourishing.
To use church funds to “promote the acceptance of homosexuality” is contrary to United Methodist policy. At the same time, it is our policy “not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends.” This is admittedly a balancing act. But in its celebration of Pride Month, GCORR comes down completely on one side of the balance. When agencies such as GCORR contravene by their actions and words the official stance of The United Methodist Church, it is no wonder that individual members and churches are reluctant to enthusiastically pay funds to support the work of the general church. This is yet another example of the general church structure ignoring the will of the church body and disregarding the authority of General Conference.
Screenshot from GCORR’s Facebook page.
Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary
In another example of recent violations of church standards, Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary (Evanston, Illinois) recently announced it will bestow one of its distinguished alumni awards upon Sue Laurie. As a self-avowed lesbian, Laurie was ineligible for ordination in the UM Church. However, during the 2016 General Conference in Portland, Oregon, Laurie was “ordained” as clergy by a group of friends and colleagues. Although this “ordination” has no official standing in the church, GETS chose to recognize it in their honoring of Laurie by granting her the title “Rev.”
Since at least the 2000 General Conference, Laurie has been a leader in the disruptive demonstrations that halted the work of every conference before 2016. At the 2008 General Conference in Fort Worth, Texas, as an act of protest following the reaffirmation of the denomination’s current stance on marriage and human sexuality, Laurie and her partner, Julie Bruno, married in a sidewalk service outside the convention center.
GETS prepares dozens of clergy to serve in annual conferences of the upper Midwest. The impact such a seminary has in undermining the church’s teachings for generations cannot be underestimated. With its alumni award, GETS once again affirms its stance in opposition to United Methodist standards and policies, despite the fact that GETS receives hundreds of thousands of apportionment dollars each year from the church. This is another reason why UM members and churches are reluctant to wholeheartedly support giving funds to the general church.
Implications
Boards and agencies of the church have been flaunting the will of General Conference for years. Those of us who deal with such adverse actions day in and day out may become accustomed to this constant drumbeat of disobedience. But many United Methodists have been unaware of the blatant nature and common frequency of such actions over the years. It is the buildup of this repeated pattern of disregard for the teachings of Scripture and the decisions of the General Conference, the only body empowered to speak for the whole church, that illustrate the current impasse in our church.
Regardless of current challenges, that impasse is not going away. We remain two churches pretending to be one. Despite the wishful thinking of a few in our church, hoping this division would go away, it will not. Our deep theological differences cannot be overcome by thoughts of unity or appeals to solidarity.
During this time of waiting for the next General Conference to open a pathway to resolve our impasse, Good News and our coalition partners are diligently preparing for the founding of a new Methodist denomination that will reflect the doctrinal and moral commitments of the church through the ages and specifically our Methodist heritage.
We are part of an eternal Kingdom of God, in which there is one Ruler and Source of truth and righteousness. Earthly kingdoms and nations come and go, but the realm of our heavenly Father persists forever. As we prepare for the next iteration of Methodism, we are conscious of being part of that eternal stream. In our day and time, it is to that eternal Kingdom and its Sovereign that we seek to be faithful. If your heart is as our heart, we invite you to join us in this adventure.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Jul 2, 2020 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
By Thomas Lambrecht –
United Methodists in Liberia load supplies as part of the church’s Anti COVID-19 Taskforce. The food relief is supported by UMCOR and other global partners. Photo by E Julu Swen, UM News.
How do Christians deal with discouragement?
Some parts of the United States, as well as some other countries around the world, have recently seen an uptick in the number of Covid-19 cases, with increased hospitalizations and deaths. The increases have led governments to pause steps to reopen the economy and, in some cases, roll back opening steps that had already been taken. Some businesses that were already open have been closed again. People that were back to work are now furloughed or laid off again. Texas, where I live, has been identified as one of the “hot spots” where increases are threatening to go out of control. Hospital capacity is filling up rapidly. Harris County (Houston) has encouraged residents to return to complete lockdown status. Some churches that were open for in-person worship have now closed again, while other churches have once again postponed in-person worship.
This week, I received the following report from a missionary in Honduras, who indicates the situation there is much worse than in the U.S.
Currently in Honduras, we have been under martial law for months, and it will last until at least July 12, or 117 consecutive days. Fines and imprisonments accompany the failure to wear a mask, shopping for food and water is only permitted once every 14 days. All residents must remain in their homes on the 13 days they cannot shop. All residents are confined to their homes from 5 pm on Fridays until 6 am on Sundays. There is no such things as curbside pickup for food. One week, for a few days, I was thrilled to taste a drive-in BIG Mac! That privilege lasted for one week. Millions are starving here.
This turn of events is discouraging on several levels. It is discouraging to see the progress made in containing the virus undone in a few weeks’ time. It is discouraging to see the continued suffering of millions due to very high unemployment and in some cases the lack of food and for others the possibility of being evicted from their homes for inability to pay rent. It is discouraging to see the thousands who suffer from Covid-19, family members who are ill, and people who are still dying alone in a hospital. It is discouraging that, although we may have one or several vaccines by the end of the year, they may not prevent people from getting the virus, only make the symptoms less severe. And of course it will take months for any vaccine to reach the bulk of the population here and around the world. It is discouraging to see people protesting against measures to protect public health, including one protest against wearing masks orchestrated by people carrying guns! It is discouraging to see government leaders giving conflicting directions in the midst of the pandemic. We need to understand this is an unprecedented event for which there is no “playbook,” and our leaders are learning as we go, developing policies on the fly.
It has often been said that the Church is the heart and hands of Jesus to an unbelieving world. Those congregations and ministries that are reaching out during this pandemic to those lacking food, on the verge of homelessness, or grieving for departed loved ones, are truly doing gospel work. “If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth” (1 John 3:17).
We, the Church, need to be diligent to respond to both the practical and spiritual needs around us.
At the same time, how do we handle such discouragement? We are witnessing in our national and global life what sometimes happens in personal life. We take two steps forward, but then take one step back. It seems like we are making little progress at times in life.
The Apostle Paul has some wonderfully encouraging words for us, born out of his own experience of trial and difficulty during his many missionary journeys.
But we have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us. We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed. We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our body. For we who are alive are always being given over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that his life may be revealed in our mortal body. … Therefore, we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal. (II Corinthians 4:7-12, 16-18)
What Paul is talking about here is relying upon the power of God when our own power is weak or non-existent. The power of God “surpasses all” but is housed in “jars of clay” — our mortal, human, frail bodies and minds. The power of God working in and through us makes up for what we lack. He is strong when we are weak. He is love when we are tempted to hatred and discord. He is assurance when we are in panic mode. He is everything when it feels like we have nothing.
If we focus on what we have and what we bring, we will surely lose hope. But if we focus on what God has and what he brings, we will not lose hope. God is able when we are not. God works when we cannot. God gives courage when we have lost ours. God is there when we need him the most.
To all outward appearances, says Paul, there are times when it looks like we are wasting away — forgotten, hopeless, hungry, homeless. Yet if we rely upon the Lord, he will renew our spirits inwardly moment by moment, day by day. Even if all should be lost in this world, we have the assurance of an eternity of blessing and joy in the Lord’s presence.
As Paul says, “We live by faith, not by sight” (II Corinthians 5:7). We live with confidence in the unseen realities appropriated only by faith. That makes it easier to cope with the discouraging realities of life in a fallen world, alienated from God even to the point that the fallen creation works to bring disease and death.
Jesus, on the night when he was betrayed, knowing he would pass through unimaginable suffering the next day and knowing what lay ahead for his disciples, said these words:
Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid. … I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world. (John 14:27, 16:33)
When everything around us or even within us is falling apart, God can give us the “peace that transcends all human understanding” (Philippians 4:7). So when it seems like this trial will go on forever, may the peace of God guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. And may the Holy Spirit renew and strengthen your faith moment by moment and day by day, as you rely upon him.
May we, the Church, continue to rise up and reach out in love to our hurting communities. In our earthly existence coping with trouble, may the world see the life and love of Jesus shine through us. Seeing Jesus, may they be drawn to him, giving all glory to the Father, who made us for relationship with himself. Even in the midst of a pandemic, God can use us to fulfill his plan and his purpose for us and for his world.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Jun 29, 2020 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
By Thomas Lambrecht –
Dr. William J. Abraham
In a ground-breaking development, Baylor University in Waco, Texas, this week announced the formation of a Wesley House of Studies at its Baptist-oriented Truett Theological Seminary.
Dr. William J. Abraham has been named the inaugural director to establish this new center of pastoral training at a Division-I university reaching students from 90 countries. It will be able to combine the resources of a school solidly committed to an orthodox, evangelical understanding of scriptural Christianity with the dynamic Wesleyan tradition.
“We are on the cusp of a new day for the future of the Wesleyan network of families across the world,” Abraham said. “In order to fulfill the promise in store for us, we urgently need fresh ways of providing the spiritual, practical, and intellectual resources that are essential for the work up ahead.
“Baylor University is a world-class institution, and the creation of a Wesley House of Studies at Baylor University’s George W. Truett Theological Seminary is a landmark development,” he said. “I can think of no better place to be home to a vibrant Wesley House. I am thrilled to play my part in making it a stellar center of excellence that the Holy Spirit can use for reform, renewal, and awakening on a global scale.”
The significance of this development can hardly be overstated. It is in part a response to the acknowledgement that, in general, our United Methodist seminaries have failed the church. That is an overgeneralization, to which there are exceptions, but the truth remains that our seminaries as a whole have not formed a generation of clergy leaders who have led the church to growth and vitality.
In the words of leadership guru John Maxwell, “Everything rises and falls on leadership.” The fact is that our denomination in the U.S. has experienced a consistent decline in membership since 1968 and a more recent drastic decline in participation. Membership in the U.S. is down over 37 percent. United Methodists in 1970 made up 5.8 percent of the U.S. population, but now it is less than half that percentage. Dozens of churches close every year. There are many factors that play into this decline, but one of the most significant is the leadership provided by the 30,000 clergy persons in our denomination. Some are highly effective, but many are not.
In my experience, a major reason for clergy ineffectiveness is the training that is offered to our pastors. Most United Methodist seminary preparation gives insufficient attention to United Methodist doctrine, biblical studies, preaching, and the practice of ministry. Although some steps have been taken to address the need, there is also insufficient mentoring and supervision for clergy in the first ten years of their active ministry after seminary.
Regarding theology and doctrine, nearly all of our UM seminaries take a pluralistic approach. Rather than teaching theology from the viewpoint of our UM doctrinal standards (the Articles of Religion and the Confession of Faith), seminaries are teaching a liberal/progressive theology that downplays or even contradicts our Wesleyan doctrinal foundation. The message that is often proclaimed in our pulpits is a nebulous theology that may be unobjectionable but is also uninspiring and undemanding. Too often, it seems as though the Wesleyan message of the need for personal salvation and the urgency to return to God through the crucified and risen Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit is replace by a message about how we can make our world a better place through living better lives personally and advocating for a particular kind of political change in our country.
Unfortunately, most of our UM seminaries have become inhospitable environments for students who believe in the primary authority of the Bible and in the validity of our Wesleyan doctrinal heritage. Teaching of the Bible is often destructive rather than constructive. One seminary leader once described the goal of the seminary to deconstruct the faith of its students before putting that faith back together in a new way.
In my experience, UM seminaries are often better at the former than the latter. Students are given many reasons to question the historical accuracy and divine inspiration of the Bible. They are taught that scholars can be the arbiters of what parts of the Bible should be accepted and what parts relegated to irrelevance. Certain key passages are lifted up as the parts of biblical teaching to emphasize, and the Bible is read in light of modern experience, rather than allowed to speak with its own voice — the voice of God. The ability to do proper exegesis and discern the validity of various interpretations of Scripture are often not emphasized. As a result, we have heard from people in the pews that their pastors seem unable to “correctly handle the word of truth” (II Timothy 2:15). Many sermons end up being the pastor’s opinion, perhaps quoting from some recent books they have read, rather than winsomely communicating the teaching of Scripture with passion and power.
There is no question that a prospective pastor cannot learn all they need to know about the practice of ministry in seminary. It takes years of experience and the input and guidance of more experienced pastors to learn how to do ministry. However, seminary can teach the basics and how to think through issues pastorally and theologically. Unfortunately, many seminaries seem unable to do even this, and many pastors make decisions based on “gut feelings” or what might be least offensive to others, rather than being informed by Scripture, theology, and the tradition and experience of the church.
The onset of Covid-19 has upended higher education in general and theological education and the practice of ministry in particular. Suddenly, pastors are being asked to do ministry in ways they were not taught in seminary. Seminaries are being forced to offer education in ways that they were not designed to offer, emphasizing online education and revamping the curriculum to deal with the new ways of doing church. Where previously seminaries have been dipping their toes in the water of online pastoral training, they are now being forced to bodily dive in. The whole model of pastoral training is up for reexamination, and the business model that supported seminary education may not survive the pandemic. In addition, seminaries have seen a drastic decline in the number of students interested in a traditional, three-year on-site seminary education.
In the midst of this ferment in pastoral training, a new Methodist denomination is being prepared. If the 2021 General Conference enacts a plan of separation such as the Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace through Separation, the need for trained pastors in the new denomination will be acute. I am encouraged by the directions that are being developed by those tasked with preparing the skeleton of a new paradigm for pastoral training.
As previously reported by the Wesleyan Covenant Association, the process of ordination may be dramatically shortened, so that nearly every local church will have an ordained clergy person to serve as its pastor. At the same time, there is a commitment to an educated clergy who may be prepared for effective ministry in a variety of ways. In addition to a traditional seminary education, provision would be made for a more comprehensive Course of Study leading to elder’s orders and a hybrid online/in-person program for obtaining a seminary degree. Some of these learning environments are more suitable for combining experiential learning, mentoring, and classroom learning that might lead to greater pastoral effectiveness.
Significantly, the commitment to an educated clergy is being backed up by the intention to provide denominational loans to prospective pastors attending seminary before and during their pastoral service. In return for serving as pastors in the new denomination, those loans would be forgiven over time. The goal is to both incentivize continued education and growth and to eliminate the problem of seminary student debt. Considerable financial resources from apportionments will be needed to ensure effective clergy leadership for the future. Such resources would not go toward blanket grants to schools, but be used to directly support individual students at whatever approved seminary they attend.
Not only will existing seminaries need to shift how they do pastoral training, but there may be a need for new training programs and seminaries that foster education that is biblically based and promotes our traditional Wesleyan understanding of the faith. The new Wesley House at Baylor is one example of this trend. In countries outside the United States, there will be a need to strengthen and further equip existing Methodist seminaries and start new ones where there are none, as well as offer the same support to students preparing for the ministry as that offered to U.S. students.
New developments like the Wesley House at Baylor and new models for pastoral training envisioned by the Wesleyan Covenant Association for a new Methodist denomination give me great hope that God will raise up and equip effective clergy leaders for the next generation to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ and build his church across the globe. It will be gratifying to be part of a growing, dynamic church once again!
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Jun 22, 2020 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
By Thomas Lambrecht –
Photo by Fauxels via Pexels.com
“Accountability” is one of the key watchwords of our contemporary era. Greater accountability is being demanded of politicians, police officers, and other public servants. How do we in the civilian arena hold those with power and position to the high standard of honesty, integrity, and justice? What powers and responsibilities should civilian review boards have? What does it mean when millions of citizens feel the need to march in protest to make their point?
Ironically, similar questions arise when it comes to the accountability of our United Methodist Church leaders and bishops. Lay people and concerned clergy are often befuddled when church leaders and bishops sometimes violate the Book of Discipline or fail to enforce it. Observers have a point when asking if the “clergy union” sometimes obstructs accountability. It is correct to ask what powers and responsibilities should committees on investigation or trial courts have? How can we ensure bishops pursue the “just resolution” process with integrity?
The primary reason The United Methodist Church is on the verge of separation is the lack of accountability in some parts of the church. We have always had differences of opinion around issues such as the definition of marriage and the boundaries of human sexuality. But over the past eight years, we have had unprecedented levels of actual disobedience to the standards set by our church’s General Conference, the only body that can set those standards for the whole church. And such disobedience has often been ignored, accommodated, or even praised by some church leaders and bishops. The actions of the 2019 St. Louis General Conference were an attempt to restore and enhance accountability to the church’s standards.
Without accountability to agreed-upon standards, there are no boundaries to human behavior. Without boundaries, there is chaos. Regrettably, riots are not the only sign of chaos. Tragically, the chaos of boundary-less behavior goes on every day at a lower intensity in our society, seen not only in racist incidents, but marital infidelity, tax cheating, bullying, abuse of others, and many other manifestations of human brokenness.
Of course, we are much better at demanding accountability for someone else, than we are at demanding it of ourselves. It is much easier to clamor for accountability for public figures than for us to hold ourselves accountable for our own racist thoughts, words, and actions. How often have we thought, “Accountability for others is prophetic preaching; accountability for me is meddling!”
And that is where human brokenness meets the Gospel of Jesus Christ. “All have sinned and fall short of God’s glorious standard” — including me. “There is no one righteous, not one.” Every one of us needs a Savior, for we cannot save ourselves, nor can we live up to the expectations and dreams God has for us.
“God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” Jesus came to redeem sinners, mend brokenness, reconcile relationships, reform attitudes, and change hearts and minds. None of these things can we do on our own. It is only the grace of God working by the power of the Holy Spirit that can transform the world, one soul at a time.
That is the urgent need of this moment. As we rightly speak out against racism and inequity and work for justice and accountability, we acknowledge the impossibility of lasting change without the Spirit of God working in and through us. We can (and should) do what we can do, but until God does what only God can do, the world will stay the same. We work in hope and expectation because we know God is already at work, using the tragedies and brokenness of our time to soften hearts and create changed lives and new systems that tend toward righteousness, rather than exploitation.
This is where accountability returns to the picture. Initial accountability awakens in us the awareness of our need for a Savior. Once we have turned to him and received forgiveness and new life, our need for accountability continues. This Christian accountability, however, leads not to judgment and condemnation, but to sanctification and growing maturity in love. It has a “positive” rather than a “negative” purpose.
“Negative” accountability is when the doctor tells me that I am out of shape, overweight, and headed toward health problems unless I do something about it. “Positive” accountability is when I join the gym and start working with a trainer who holds me accountable to daily and weekly fitness goals. The first accountability shows me the need for change in my life. The second accountability supports me in actually making that change in a sustainable way.
This is the DNA of Methodism, that we would “watch over one another in love.” That we would invite others to hold us accountable, not in a judgmental way, but in a supportive way, helping us to actualize the life of love to which Jesus calls us. The early Methodist class meetings, small groups of about a dozen people, met to share with each other “how it is with my soul.” Not so that I could prove that I am more spiritual than you are. Not so you could look down on me for the pitiful state of my soul. But so that together we can encourage and support one another on the journey toward living in perfect love with God and others.
The Christian life is not easy. Becoming conformed to the likeness of Jesus Christ is challenging and painful. We should not expect to do it alone. I am much less likely to skip a day at the gym when I know my trainer is going to ask me next week how many times I worked out. In the same way, I am much more likely to keep striving to live a Christlike life when I know I will have to answer those questions in my next small group meeting, “How is it with your soul? How did your life reflect Christ’s love this week? What challenges did you face in striving to live for Jesus?”
Accountability for others is important, and we should work to make our society more just and fair. But accountability for ourselves prepares us for an eternity with God and helps us to be a channel for Jesus’ transforming grace in this life. Let’s find a way to gather the support, encouragement, and accountability we need to sustain us on this journey.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Jun 12, 2020 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
The Crossing of the Red Sea by Nicolas Poussin (1633-34)
By Thomas Lambrecht –
Winston Churchill is alleged to have remarked, “never waste a crisis.” It has long been said that the Chinese characters for the word “crisis” signify both danger and opportunity. If we focus too much on the danger, we can miss the opportunity that is hidden within the crisis.
The process of change and growth is most often a slow, steady process — discussed in Eugene Peterson’s book entitled A Long Obedience in the Same Direction. But this steady process is often punctuated by singular events that bring dramatic change and growth in a short time. When our grandchildren come to visit us for a week, we often note a significant jump in their vocabulary, their ability to walk, or other forms of growth. A crisis can shake up the status quo in a way that encourages change and allows new growth that would not otherwise happen.
Key events in the Bible represented crisis times that brought about dramatic change and growth. Moses and the people of Israel were trapped between the Egyptian army and the Red Sea. God parted the waters and the people began their journey as a new nation formed by the Exodus. The Philistines killed Israel’s first king, Saul, and his sons, threatening to enslave Israel once again. God anointed David as king and empowered him to lead Israel to victory over their enemies and to the greatest expansion of Israel’s borders, power, and wealth in their history. The Assyrians had captured nearly every town in Israel and surrounded Jerusalem with their mighty army. King Hezekiah prayed and God destroyed the Assyrian army by putting 185,000 men to death, perhaps by a plague.
In the New Testament, the biggest crisis of all occurred when the Son of God was humiliated and put to death on a cross outside Jerusalem. Three days later, God raised Jesus from the dead and changed human history forever. Fifty days later the Church was born on Pentecost with the gift of the Holy Spirit and the conversion of over 3,000 people.
Each of these crisis moments posed a real, existential danger to God’s people. And in each instance God intervened to bring about a miraculous turnaround that transformed God’s people and changed history.
We may be at such a crisis point right now. In fact, we are beset by a health crisis with the Coronavirus pandemic, an economic crisis with the worst downturn since the Great Depression, and a societal crisis in coming to grips with the evil of racism. Any one of these crises would be challenging enough to deal with on its own. Addressing all three crises at the same time puts us in a situation of “biblical proportions,” like the examples cited above.
We can count on the fact that God is with us in the midst of these crises. Not only that, but God is ready to act on our behalf in the midst of these crises. As Moses encouraged the Israelites on the shores of the Red Sea, “Do not be afraid. Stand firm and you will see the deliverance the Lord will bring you today. … The Lord will fight for you; you need only to be still” (Exodus 14:13-14). We can look first and foremost to what God is doing in the midst of our crisis. Through prayer we can relinquish our need to be in control and allow ourselves to rest in God’s presence and the assurance of his activity on our behalf.
But there is also a role for us to play. When God parted the waters, the people walked through the Red Sea. When God proclaimed David king, the people acknowledged his authority and the army went out to fight the enemy. When Jesus rose from death, the first disciples told the story and proclaimed God’s salvation. As Henry Blackaby (Experiencing God) puts it, we need to discern what God is doing and join him in his work.
So churches have been feeding the hungry, paying rent and utilities for people who have been laid off, and ministering to those suffering illness or grieving loss. We have been learning how to worship at a distance or online and how to maintain relationships via Zoom and phone calls. We have become vividly aware of unjust deaths and hateful prejudice in our midst and even perhaps in our own hearts.
Here is where the opportunity of our crisis comes. We are learning to do church in new ways. We are learning to use new tools to reach people with the love of Christ. We are learning new behaviors and ways to understand the experiences of our black and brown sisters and brothers as we have not understood them before.
When the crisis is past, we could just try to return to “the way things used to be.” There is a certain nostalgia and attraction for the familiar. The Israelites often longed to return to Egypt, forgetting that there was slavery. We must resist that siren call of the past.
Instead, we can incorporate what we have learned and the ways we have grown in the crisis to envision a new way to do and be church. The Rev. Tom Berlin, an influential pastor in Virginia, calls it “hybrid church.” Even when we return to doing some of the things we used to do, we can also keep doing some of the new things we have learned how to do. Regeneration Ministries in Maryland has found that by taking their ministry online, they are able to reach people across the country and around the world with the love, healing, and transformation of Jesus. Our ability to reach people can grow exponentially as we incorporate new strategies.
And we can be a church that treats one another with love and equal justice in new ways. We can learn to listen to understand, rather than simply react when people share their perspective that differs from our own. We can step back from being defensive and engage in a constructive way with the pain of people of color who have experienced racism in great and small ways. We can react positively and embrace the opportunity when the bishop wants to appoint a woman or a person of color as our pastor. We can speak up for reform of our justice system to increase accountability for law enforcement and focus on treatment and rehabilitation of nonviolent offenders, rather than locking them up in prison. Instead of continuing as a denomination that is 95 percent white in the United States, we can intentionally and aggressively seek to build ministry in the ethnic communities that will soon make up a majority of our country’s population.
The English word “crisis” comes from the Greek krisis (decision) from the Greek krinein (to decide). A crisis presents us with decisions to make. Will we hunker down and resist change and adaptation, hanging on to the way things used to be? Or, as orthodox Christians, will we embrace the opportunity to do and be the church in the new ways demanded by our changing times? Assured of God’s presence, his activity on our behalf, and his guidance, we can step out in faith to be followers of Jesus Christ in a new path.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
