by Steve | Jan 7, 2019 | Uncategorized
By Carlos Alarcon, M.D. –
As my involvement in the administration of my local church has grown, my understanding of the global United Methodist Church has expanded. Like many other lay people, I have become keenly aware of how un-united we truly are. Though we claim to be one in faith, our United Methodist Church, like most other major Protestant denominations, is feeling the effects of living and serving in a post-modern world. We as a society have gone from a scriptural worldview grounded in the Bible and the traditional tenets of the Christian faith passed on for over 2000 years where truth is determined by God and is universal, to a post-modern belief where truth is relative and subjective, defined by the individual, and is situational.
A faith built precariously on doubts and suspicions is not the faith I know because I have witnessed the hope that resides in the power of Christ’s cross.
So I refuse to build my faith upon suspicions and doubts. Instead, I proudly stand unashamed for the ancient faith that enabled our Christian ancestors to endure trials and tribulations I can barely imagine. I proudly stand unashamed for the faith that warmed the heart of John Wesley and ignited the Methodist movement. Our faith is grounded in the sure hope of Jesus Christ, and for this hope we stand unashamed.
The cross is a symbol of faith and hope, but to those of us who profess to be followers of Christ, it is the greatest symbol of love the world will ever know. It is a love that seeks us out and meets us wherever we are, pays for our sins, frees us from death, redeems and restores us in relationship with our Holy Father. It is a love that provides life, abundant life – eternal life. It is a love that we don’t deserve and could never earn. It is a love that calls us to serve out of reverence, adoration, and gratitude. A love that is too big not to share! This is the love for which we stand unashamed.
I do not worship a god of my own creation, but instead a God who created me. And I do not fully comprehend his love, a love that is unreasonable, unwarranted, and undeserved, yet is freely and lavishly poured out on me and all who would accept Christ Jesus as Lord and Savior.
This is not a love I fully understand, nor do I fully understand the author of that love. He is not a god I can wrap my mind around but a God who blows my mind instead. He alone is worthy, and for Him I will stand unashamed! God I pray, let that be what defines me.
Dr. Carlos Alarcon, M.D., is a medical doctor and lay member of Mt. Bethel United Methodist Church in Marietta, Georgia.
by Steve | Jan 4, 2019 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter, Uncategorized
Glide Memorial United Methodist Church in San Francisco. Photo courtesy of Google street view.
By Thomas Lambrecht –
New action has taken place by the California-Nevada Annual Conference filing suit against Glide Memorial United Methodist Church over Trust Clause issues. Such action shows what might happen in the event other congregations try to leave the denomination.
In a previous post, I described the conflict going on between California-Nevada Annual Conference Bishop Minerva Carcaño and the 89-year-old Glide Memorial Church, on paper one of the largest congregations in our denomination. The conflict revolved around the fact that Glide no longer conducts Christian worship and is not faithful to United Methodist doctrine and practice. Instead, they have embraced a form of interfaith “worship” that encompasses atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, Hindus, and many others in addition to Christians (and one assumes, some United Methodists).
The crisis erupted when the pastor at Glide resigned because he was not able to exercise full leadership of the church, unhindered by the Glide Foundation’s board of directors. Longtime Pastor Cecil Williams, while long retired, still appears to be making the leadership decisions for the church. Bishop Carcaño attempted to appoint a new pastor, but the Foundation board rejected the person. She then appointed all the pastoral staff to different churches, leaving Glide without a regular pastor.
Six months of negotiations between the conference and Glide have not yielded a fruitful resolution to the disagreement. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the conference recently filed suit against Glide in order to protect the Trust Clause and the conference’s ownership of Glide’s property.
The Glide Foundation board maintains that the conflict is about the conference trying to gain control of the millions of dollars held by the Foundation, 95 percent of which goes to support social service ministries in the community. Carcaño assures that the conflict is about making Glide accountable to United Methodist doctrine and processes and honoring the original intent of donor Lizzie Glide, who established the foundation in order to provide for a Methodist Church in San Francisco.
There have been conflicting decisions about church trusts in California, but the most recent decisions have favored the denomination. The controversy will potentially now play out in a courtroom that will determine the obligations of the Glide Foundation in relation to The United Methodist Church.
One hopes that this high-profile lawsuit is not a precursor to what might happen in the future if congregations try to leave The United Methodist Church. General Conference can alleviate this concern by passing a fair, equitable, and standardized exit path for congregations as a part of its actions at the February special session.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Jun 4, 2018 | In the News, Uncategorized
Message by the Rev. Rob Renfroe, president of Good News, at the Confessing Movement luncheon of the Texas Annual Conference taking on the bishops who put forth the “One Church” Plan. “It has to be very frustrating for centrists and progressives to come up with an approach that they believe to be very reasonable and allows everyone to do what they desire only for us to find it unacceptable,” said Renfroe. “After all, what can be more American that allowing everyone to have it their way.” Watch the video HERE.
by Steve | May 14, 2018 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter, Uncategorized
By Thomas Lambrecht-
On Monday, May 7, the Council of Bishops announced [link] that two of the five amendments to the United Methodist Constitution approved by the 2016 General Conference were defeated by the votes of the annual conferences. In order to amend the Constitution, it takes approval by two-thirds of the General Conference delegates and two-thirds of all the annual conference members. Results on the voting had been anticipated last November, but some annual conferences failed to vote in a timely fashion.
The two amendments that were defeated both related to combatting discrimination, particularly discrimination based on gender. Amendment I lost by less than two-tenths of one percent — by my calculations roughly 65 votes out of over 47,000 ballots cast. Amendment II lost by 5.3 percentage points, or a little more than 2,500 votes out of more than 47,300 ballots cast.
The women bishops issued a pastoral letter lamenting ongoing sexism and resolving to continue working for inclusion. The Rev. Dr. Steve Harper identified misogyny and a chauvinistic theology of God as one major factor in the amendments’ defeat.
These and other overwrought statements are simplistic and ignore other concerns that played a role in the defeat of the amendments.
For fifty years, Good News has been a voice for women’s equality, affirming in particular women as pastors and teachers and highlighting efforts to combat human trafficking and rescue girls and women from oppression. While we are aware that a few evangelical United Methodists oppose women in leadership in the church, we have attempted to clearly advocate for the full equal value and participation of women at all levels of the church.
Amendment I
At the same time, in a statement posted last year, Good News expressed concerns (although not opposition) about the two defeated amendments. Amendment I added a whole new paragraph to the Constitution (which we thought more appropriately belonged in the Social Principles) about the equal value of girls and women, acknowledging a long history of discrimination and making a commitment to eliminate such discrimination. We stated, “While this statement is well-intentioned, and we support its strong emphasis on the equality of women, we are concerned with its theological fuzziness being written into our Constitution. The church’s advocacy for women’s equality is well-stated elsewhere in the Book of Discipline.” In particular, we were concerned that “the second sentence raises theological concerns when it says, ‘it is contrary to Scripture and to logic to say that God is male or female … maleness and femaleness are … not characteristics of the divine.’ Does this mean Jesus is not male? Or does it mean that Jesus, who is obviously male, is not divine? Either position is contrary to our doctrinal standards.”
In response to Harper, I agree that “God is a composite of genders, the essence of Being that is neither defined by or limited to any specific gender.” However, Jesus Christ is fully God as well as fully human. And male/female gender is a characteristic of being human. So Jesus, while God, did have a male gender. That is not a basis for elevating men over women, discriminating against women, or devaluing women in any way. But the statement in the amendment was confusing and theologically inexact. Putting it in the Constitution had the potential for all kinds of adverse unintended consequences.
Amendment II
Amendment II added the words “ability, age, gender, and marital status” to the list of types of persons against which the church cannot discriminate. Good News stated, “While in sympathy with the intentions of the proposed additions, we are concerned about potential unintended consequences of adopting this amendment as presently worded. We encourage careful consideration of the issues involved before adopting this amendment. We would hope to support better wording in the future that could accomplish the purposes in a clearer and less controversial way.”
We had three concerns about Amendment II:
- The word “gender” is no longer understood to be merely a binary (male/female) term. It has recently become a loaded word in Western culture and carries within it connotations of transgender, gender queer, and other perceptions of gender that we do not believe should be granted blanket and unconditional inclusion in the Constitution.
- We are concerned that adding “marital status” without defining the term could be interpreted to give a mandate in our constitution to recognize same-sex marriage or polygamy in those countries that allow such. The current definition of marriage in the Social Principles could be nullified by this Constitutional language.
- The inclusion of “age” could result in the elimination of mandatory retirement for bishops and clergy. There was no discussion of this possibility at General Conference, and we are concerned that this could be an unintended consequence of adopting this amendment. If we are to eliminate mandatory retirement, it should at least be discussed and considered by the General Conference delegates before being approved.
The women bishops “weep for those who are not protected from exclusion in the church because of race, color, gender, national origin, ability, age, marital status, or economic condition.” However, our Constitution already explicitly protects persons from discrimination based on race, color, national origin, status, or economic condition (¶ 4). While discrimination is alive and well in our church for these qualities, defeat of the amendment did not reflect, nor did it increase the likelihood of, such discrimination against these brothers and sisters. We must continue to be vigilant in eradicating such discrimination.
These concerns were also identified by others, including the Rev. Dr. Jerry Kulah in Liberia. The United Methodist Church has numerous other statements in our Constitution and throughout the Book of Discipline that affirm the value and role of women in the church and combat discrimination against women and girls.
A Soap Opera Plot Twist
Now it turns out that the very sentence that caused so much concern in Amendment I was actually deleted by the General Conference and should not have been included in the wording that was put up for ratification in the annual conferences. This colossal error following the 2016 General Conference means that the amendment (with the correct wording) will now have to be voted on again by all the annual conferences.
The deletion of the controversial sentence removes most of the concerns Good News had with this amendment, and we predict it will ultimately pass and be ratified by the annual conferences.
Amendment V
Lost in all the controversy was the approval of Amendment V, which grants the Council of Bishops the power to intervene (by a two-thirds vote) in a complaint process against a bishop. This means that, if the Council of Bishops is unsatisfied with the outcome of the complaint process, it can take over the process and pursue a better outcome.
This amendment was ratified by an 81 percent approval, although the Western Jurisdiction voted against it by an 81 percent margin. The Western Jurisdiction annual conferences were evidently concerned that this amendment would now enable the Council of Bishops to ensure that Bishop Karen Oliveto is eventually removed from office.
Although Good News supported this amendment as a welcome enhancement of the accountability process with bishops who are alleged to have violated the Discipline, I have no illusions that a two-thirds majority of the Council of Bishops is willing to ensure accountability for any bishop, let alone for Bishop Oliveto. Someday, this provision might be helpful, but I do not see it having immediate impact (although I could be wrong).
In short, all the hand-wringing and controversy over the supposed misogyny of United Methodists leading to defeating essential protections for women and girls is a tempest in a teapot. Many protections already exist in our Discipline, and the vast majority of United Methodists are committed to equal valuing and treatment for women and girls. What we are hesitant to approve are vague and confusing statements that lock our church into constitutionally protected language that could have serious unintended consequences. For that, our annual conference members ought to be commended, not criticized.
Tom Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
by Steve | May 5, 2018 | In the News, Uncategorized
May 4, 2018 –
This afternoon, the United Methodist Council of Bishops announced that it will submit a report to the special 2019 General Conference that contains all three plans for a way forward considered by the bishops and the Commission on a Way Forward. This will include the Traditionalist Plan, the One Church Plan, and the Connectional Conference Plan.
The Rev. Rob Renfroe
Good News applauds the Council’s decision to include a Traditionalist Plan in their report. “We are glad the bishops will submit an option that represents the mainstream majority of the church,” said the Rev. Rob Renfroe, president of Good News. “This puts the Traditionalist Plan rightfully on an equal footing to be considered by the delegates to the special session along with the bishops’ preferred plan, the One Church Plan, which has been repeatedly rejected by the General Conference in the past. We believe the Traditionalist Plan holds the most hope for a fruitful future for The United Methodist Church.”
While the Council press release declared that a “majority of the Council of Bishops recommends the One Church Plan as the best way forward for The United Methodist Church,” it acknowledged “there is support for each of the three plans within the Council.” According to the release: “While the bishops recommended the One Church Plan they affirmed that the Connectional Conference Plan and the Traditionalist Plan held values that are important to the life and work of the church.”
The most disappointing news coming out of the meeting is that the full details of the plans and accompanying legislative proposals will be released “no later than July 8.” This is the deadline for submitting petitions to the special General Conference. The delay is purportedly due to the need for final editing and translation into the official languages of the General Conference.
“Waiting until July 8 to find out the details of the plans is simply unacceptable,” said the Rev. Thomas Lambrecht, vice president of Good News. “We call upon the Council of Bishops to release at least a summary of the details of the plans before annual conferences begin meeting later this month, so that members of the annual conferences can begin to familiarize themselves with the options available to guide their delegates in making an informed and prayerful decision about our church’s future direction.”
Good News will continue to analyze and publicize information about the three plans as it becomes available.
Council of Bishop’s Press Release HERE.
by Steve | Mar 13, 2018 | Front Page News, In the News, Uncategorized
By Rob Renfroe –
Recently a progressive United Methodist pastor said to me, “I don’t understand why you can’t accept the local option. It lets pastors who want to marry gay couples do so. But it doesn’t compel people like you to perform such ceremonies. It allows annual conferences to ordain married homosexuals where that’s acceptable. But where the context is different – in the South, for example – you’re free not to. I don’t understand why you can’t live with that.”
I think that pastor got to the heart of the matter even though he didn’t realize it. And the heart of the matter is he doesn’t understand classical evangelicals. It has to be frustrating for progressives to come up with an approach they believe to be very reasonable and that allows everyone to do what they desire, only for us to find it unacceptable. After all, what could be more American than letting everyone “have it their way”?
What do progressives not get about us? For starters, we believe the Scriptures really are the word of God. When a pastor holds up a Bible in church and says, “The word of God for the people of God,” we don’t cross our fingers behind our backs, roll our eyes, or snicker when we respond, “Thanks be to God.” We honestly believe the Scriptures are “God-breathed” and, therefore, authoritative for our lives. We don’t think that we know more about salvation, sexuality, or the nature of God than the Bible does. We don’t believe we get to ignore or need to correct the parts of Scripture that a progressive culture finds hard to accept. Consequently, we cannot affirm any solution that allows pastors in the UM Church to teach or act contrary to what God has revealed in his written word. I know that progressive pastors who have been trained in liberal seminaries simply cannot comprehend that we would hold such a high view of Scripture. But that’s what we believe.
Progressives also do not comprehend how offensive it is for us to hear that all they want to do is provide a solution that “contextualizes” the Gospel. If all they meant by “contextualizing the Gospel” was thinking of creative ways to present Christ so that the Gospel spoke to people in different cultural settings, we’d be all for it. Missionaries attend months, if not years, of training to understand the culture they will be ministering in. How you present the Gospel to an atheistic philosophy professor in New England is much different from how you would share Christ with an uneducated, lower caste Hindu in India.
But when progressives talk about contextualizing the Gospel, they don’t mean presenting the same message in different ways. They mean changing the message to fit the values that culture holds dear. In the Bible Belt it’s still OK to teach traditional values because people there still accept marriage as one man and one woman. But in California, progressives tell us, to reach people you must have a liberalized sexual ethic, including the normalization of homosexual behavior and gay marriage. Why? Because people on the West Coast will turn you off if you tell them differently.
What progressives do not understand is that we traditionalists do not have a utilitarian view of truth. We don’t think the truth is whatever works or whatever sells. We don’t see the church as a soft drink company that is trying to offer something for everyone. Proclaiming the Gospel is not like trying to find a flavor that people will buy and decide that if it becomes popular enough, we’ll start selling it. Paul wrote, “You see, we are not like the many hucksters who preach for personal profit. We preach the word of God with sincerity and with Christ’s authority, knowing that God is watching us” (2 Corinthians 2.17). Progressives, true progressives, believe that people are free to create their own truth and whatever works for a person is true for that person. It’s hard for liberals to understand, but it is hurtful for us to see the Gospel treated as something so cheap. It is offensive for us to hear pastors and bishops present the truth of God’s word as a lump of clay that we can fashion into our own image or into the likeness of a fallen and sinful culture. Our job as Paul tells us is not to make the Gospel palatable, but plain.
Progressives also don’t understand how we see the work of the Holy Spirit. A resolution that is coming before my annual conference this May calls upon the church to change our sexual ethic because “the Holy Spirit is doing a new thing.” Evidently, they believe, the Holy Spirit is now revealing that same-gender sexual relations and same-sex marriage are acceptable in God’s sight. Of course, the sponsors of the resolution do not give a single reason to believe this is what the Spirit is doing. They simply state it as a fact.
What they don’t understand is that we will never be persuaded that “the new thing” the Spirit is doing is repealing the written word of God. The Spirit illumines our understanding of God and his will. The Spirit enables us to see in new ways the wonder of what God has done and what he has revealed – and even how these truths apply to our particular settings. But the Spirit never contradicts what the Scriptures teach because the Scriptures are God-breathed. Has God changed his mind, received more light along the way, or become more progressive as the ages have passed? If not, then how can the same God now be revealing a sexual ethic that contradicts what he has previously stated to be his will?
I get that progressives just don’t get us. We believe the Bible, all of it, is the inspired word of God. They don’t. We believe the truth is what it is, not what we make it into. They don’t. We believe that what the Spirit reveals will always be true to the Scriptures. They don’t. We are coming from such different places that I understand it’s difficult for liberals to comprehend how we think.
But what progressives and centrists need to get is this: we will not be able to stay in a church that denies the full inspiration, truth, and authority of the Scriptures. And that’s really what’s behind “the local option.”
That’s why traditional evangelicals continue to press for a faithful church with a sexual ethic that is true to Scripture. Either the UM Church remains committed to God’s word or the UM Church will split. Progressives don’t have to “get” that, but they do need to believe it.
Rob Renfroe is the president and publisher of Good News. He is the co-author with Walter Fenton of the new book titled Are We Really Better Together – An Evangelical Perspective on the Division within the UMC. This book describes just how deep the division is within the United Methodist Church, provides a critique of the various plans the bishops are considering, and gives answers to the most common reasons people give for liberalizing our sexual ethics.
