by Steve | May 25, 2011 | Magazine Articles
By Frank Decker
Over the years it has amazed me how, in some countries, the honking of horns can be a source of constant background noise. In many of these countries, it seems as though a tap of the horn simply means “I’m here,” a passive announcement of one’s presence to avoid a collision. In fact, a common slogan on the back of large trucks in India is “Sound horn and proceed,” an audible version of the bumper sticker seen on the back of many trucks in the United States, “If you can’t see my mirrors, I can’t see you.”
While living in West Africa, I was curious about the incessant honking, and I actually went on long walks during which I counted the amount of time between beeps. The longest period of silence I ever observed between honks in our city was 45 seconds.
Honking is a cultural phenomenon, and it makes sense that it is different here in the United States than in places that I would describe as, say, more laid back. Although honking seems less frequent here, I think it largely originates from a different stimulus. Apart from the occasional
“Hey, the light is green” toot one may hear after failing to accelerate immediately after the traffic signal changes, I think that, in general, a high percentage of honking here is rooted in anger, whether it’s the “You have violated my safety zone” honk to someone who moved into the space you were leaving between you and the car in front of you, or the “You idiot, you almost hit me” blast. Honking of this nature can be seen as territorial, because we are letting others know that they have intruded into an area that we had considered ours. (Of course, there are times when, for safety’s sake, we really do need to honk to let people know they are about to hit us.)
Lately I’ve noticed an increase in another sort of “honking” as well—not literally, but nonetheless a sounding of an alarm that our space is being invaded. As more and more people immigrate to our country, I am seeing a number of Christians respond in unfortunate ways to persons from other religious traditions. Rather than seeing the increasing diversity in our culture as an increase in opportunities to share the message and love of Jesus, there seems to be the sounding of a fearful alarm that we will lose our American way of life. A few examples will suffice.
Recently CNN aired a show entitled “Unwelcome: Muslims next door.” It illustrated the extreme anger and misunderstandings surrounding the plans to build a new mosque in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. A number of those interviewed seemed to assume that a Muslim presence indicated the certainty of terrorist activity (when, in fact, the only actual terrorism that had occurred up to that point was the setting on fire of construction equipment on the site).
In a large church near my home in Georgia, a conference was recently held touting to provide training for engagement in the “worldview war,” and in fact dubbed itself as a biblical worldview conference. Some of the topics addressed were: “Why it is impossible for Christians and Muslims to find common ground” and “The danger and rise of ecumenicalism.” This conference fomented fear and distrust rather than love and respect.
In response to the conference in Georgia, a friend who directs a multi-national Christian mission organization said that if he had been able to attend, he would have stood up and said, “Can you suggest ways this rally might help me love God with all my heart, and love my neighbors as myself…including even my enemies?” That simple question seems to be lost among the clamor of the current culture wars. It seems to me that in some people’s minds the Prince of Peace is a little more than the guardian of our American way of life.
We do have a choice, however. We can honk and say “Hey, stay out of my space.” Or, we can see our changing circumstances as opportunities to know and understand others and introduce them to Jesus. But it is difficult to do the latter if our primary agenda is the preservation of our lifestyle above all else. The two notions are ultimately incompatible (a theme that has been notably expressed in David Platt’s recent book, Radical.)
There are resources for church leaders who wish to learn and lead others into a responsible, biblical, and peace-loving response to our changing cultural landscape. Abrahamic Alliance International (www.abrahamicalliance.org) is a faith-based ministry uniting Jews, Christians, and Muslims for active peacebuilding and relief of extreme poverty. They are available to conduct church seminars on loving Muslim neighbors, then unite graduates with local Muslims in a collaborative service to the poor, suffering, and marginalized. Another resourcing organization is Trac5, which seeks to raise awareness and give people “a place to breathe and to respect each other.” They also provide leadership training for young leaders, and you can find out more at www.Trac5.org.
I believe that the nature of our honking should be; “I’m here, you’re there, let’s try to understand each other.” Or, at least, “Let’s not run into each other.” But when our honking is loaded with anger, it benefits nobody.
by Steve | May 25, 2011 | Magazine Articles
By Duffy Robbins
I’m occasionally asked whether it’s better to do a Bible study or Sunday school lesson based on a text or a topic? Should we be working through one of the gospels, or should we be surveying the Old Testament? Should we use the curriculum that was sent from the Publishing House or should we just abandon traditional teaching altogether and go uber hipster: turn off the lights, bring in the candles, and just play Nooma videos back to back for two hours?
There are two approaches we can take when we teach the Bible. The following two exercises will help to demonstrate the difference between the two approaches.
1. Take a moment and read through 2 Kings 2:23-24. As you read, jot down the possible topics that are suggested in these two verses. What did you come up with? Here’s the list I came up with:
• Speaking to Build Up,
• Anger-Management,
• Respect for the Elderly,
• Animal Rights,
• Learning to Forgive,
• Bald People, and Why We Should Be Kind to Them.
2. Let’s take one of the topics from the lists above, “Dealing with Anger,” and in the space below, list five Bible passages that teach on that one issue. What did you come up with? Here’s my list:
• Romans 12:17
• Proverbs 15:1
• Mark 3:5
• James 1:19
• Ephesians 4:26-27
These two exercises, back to back, demonstrate very simply the difference between using a textual approach to teaching, and a topical approach to teaching.
When planning a lesson topic, it’s helpful to think in terms of two types of experiences—textual lessons and topical lessons. The difference is simple: with textual lessons, the text suggests the topic (Exercise #1), and with topical studies the topic suggests the text (Exercise #2). Both approaches are good and useful, and although you occasionally hear someone who feels that one is far superior to the other, both approaches have unique advantages and disadvantages.
Advantages to a Textual Approach
• Points students back to the words of Scripture;
• Points youth workers back to the words of Scripture;
• Makes it harder to duck texts that are “inconvenient” or hard to talk about;
• Helps students learn how to feed themselves from Scripture, instead of giving them a diet of ready-made processed talks;
• Offers a more balanced diet of truth—topics are suggested by the text rather than by the whims or hot topics of any one group or youthworker;
• Can get bogged down in more sophisticated theological-textual questions that might just “muddy the water” for a teenager who is asking, “What does God say about…?”
• Can make it more difficult to speak to student’s felt needs (it doesn’t have to). Obviously, there is a point at which the Bible speaks to every aspect of the human condition, but it doesn’t do that in every passage, or even in every book. So, it can feel a little less student-sensitive, a little less responsive to students’ needs.
Advantages to a Topical Approach
• Allows for flexibility. You can adjust and shift topics to meet the needs of the group;
• It’s easier. That doesn’t make it better; but it does require less study, and that’s just a fact;
• It approaches the text the way our students live. They don’t read the Bible to find out what it says, they read the Bible so they can do what it says. Now, obviously, they can’t do what it says without finding out what it says, but again, one approach is directed more towards concepts and one is directed more towards the concrete;
• Allows your teaching to be more needs-based;
• Requires a little less work to make it relevant because with topical, the topics are chosen because of their relevance. Whereas with a textual approach, the topics come to us because they are there in the text;
• Can develop in our students an appetite for “how-to” Christianity—can reduce all Christian truth down to a “fix it” guide;
• Could end up skipping over truths that might, in time, transform the mind (Romans 12:1), but don’t immediately have relevance for a teenager’s life;
• When we teach from a topical menu that jumps around from topic to topic, it can allow us to avoid hard topics that we don’t feel comfortable or competent to talk about.
Every group has different needs and every teacher has different gifts. Which method fits your situation?
by Steve | May 25, 2011 | Magazine Articles
By Wesley Putnam
Sunday, February 27, was the day when University United Methodist Church in Austin, Texas, was going to vote on becoming a Reconciling Congregation. The vote had been heralded three months previous through The Daily Texan with the headline: “Methodists to vote on GLBT inclusion.” GLBT is the acronym for “Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender.”
According to its website, Reconciling Ministries Network (RMN) is committed to overturning the historic stance of United Methodism’s biblical position on ordination standards, human sexuality, and marriage between a man and a woman. According to its website, “RMN works for full equality in membership, ordination, and marriage for God’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender children.”
One of the primary problems with this vote is that it is clearly forbidden by Decision #871 of the United Methodist Judicial Council: “A local church or any of its organizational units may not identify or label itself as an unofficial body or movement.
“Such identification or labeling is divisive and makes the local church subject to the possibility of being in conflict with the Discipline and doctrines of The United Methodist Church.”
Additionally, Judicial Council Decision #886 has bearing on this matter: “[A]nnual conferences may not legally negate, ignore, or violate provisions of the Discipline with which they disagree, even when the disagreements are based upon conscientious objections to those provisions.”
When it became public that University UM Church was planning this vote, I notified the pastor that he was moving the church in a direction that seemed to be in clear violation of the United Methodist Book of Discipline. He indicated he was determined to continue and had already discussed it with his district superintendent.
I then contacted the office for the District Superintendent in the Austin District, citing the relevant Judicial Council Decisions. I never received a response.
Next, I contacted Bishop Jim Dorff of the Southwest Texas Conference and informed him of the plans of UUMC. In his email response, the bishop assured me that he appreciated my concern but then went on to state his belief that “it is permissible for a congregation to be affiliated with the Reconciling Ministries Network.” He was, apparently, making a distinction between being “affiliated” and “identification or labeling”—explicitly prohibited by Judicial Council rulings. He even stated, “It is often difficult to keep this distinction clear in everyone’s understanding.”
I fail to see the difference. Affiliating with a group is identifying with a group. And Judicial Council Decision #871 simply says that Annual Conferences, local churches, and units within churches (Sunday school classes, UMW groups, etc.) are forbidden to “identify or label” themselves as “an unofficial body or movement.”
The entire point of not labeling your congregation is because it is “divisive and makes the local church subject to the possibility of being in conflict with the Discipline and doctrines of the United Methodist Church,” as the Judicial Council made clear.
Rainbow crosses and pink triangles
After several email exchanges with Bishop Dorff, I decided to attend the vote at University UM Church as an observer. I also attended the morning worship service just before the church conference.
The lovely sanctuary was comfortably full with between 250 and 300 worshipers. The congregation that gathered was multi-generational. I was met by friendly greetings from several members as I made my way to my seat.
I noticed that rainbow crosses and pink triangles were displayed on many lapels.
The pipe organ was belting out a rousing call to worship and the sound reverberated off the ample hardwood surfaces of the room. The atmosphere was celebratory as the congregants anticipated the purpose of this day.
The style of worship was traditional. There was a lot of liturgy and ancient hymns, plus also a couple of more recent songs from the hymnal supplement.
Everything in the service was designed to lead up to this historic vote. Even the children’s sermon was a call to remember that there are many different pieces that make up a puzzle.
“When God’s peace is at work, even though we are going in lots of different directions, God brings us together and gives us God’s love,” the pastor told the children. “To love each other, care for each other, and be reconciled to each other. We want to be with all different kinds of people, not just people just like us,” he said.
The last statement seemed to be directed to the adult congregation more so than it was to the children.
The Rev. John Elford of University UM Church is a tall man with a quiet and conversational speaking style. In remarks sprinkled with humor, he emphasized that UUMC is a “welcoming congregation” and the people there are “learning more and more every day” about all that term means.
Ironically, the Scripture Pastor Elford chose to speak on was “Blessed are the peacemakers”—on a day when he was leading the church to take a divisive action.
I certainly didn’t disagree with everything he said. He spoke of the hard work Jesus calls us to of reconciling the world to God. He said it is not always easy to make peace. Peacemaking can be back-breaking work in which we must trust God’s providence for success.
Pastor Elford said we need not fear as we do this work because evil is being overcome with good. He declared that the forces we are up against are what Paul called “principalities and powers.”
Regrettably, the context of the day infused Pastor Elford’s words with a meaning that differs from the church’s historic proclamation of the gospel. Ultimately, the pastor of University United Methodist Church was challenging his congregation to “make peace” with what God’s Word has declared to be sinful. In this new meaning of things, a person cannot be truly “welcomed” unless his or her behavior is affirmed and even endorsed.
Pastor Elford was calling his church to celebrate behavior that has been prohibited for thousands of years—in both the Old and New Testaments.
Further, he was asking them to violate the spirit of our denominational Book of Discipline and the clear intent of the UM Judicial Council by joining an unofficial group whose statement of purpose is opposed to church law.
The controversy over how the church will treat homosexual behavior has been “front and center” in every General Conference for four decades. The United Methodist response has been consistent, clear, and gracious. We view homosexuals—as we do all people—as being of sacred worth, but we recognize homosexual behavior as being contrary to the teaching of Scripture and the established body of doctrine held by the church. That is our stand.
It is not the prerogative of a pastor or local church to purposely crusade against settled church law, while suggesting that everyone who opposes them (including, by implication, the UM Judicial Council, the General Conference, and every orthodox UM member) is a part of the “principalities and powers” of darkness.
But led by their pastor, and with the district superintendent present, this is precisely what University United Methodist Church did. After the 11 a.m. service, by a vote of 228 to 15, UUMC became affiliated with the Reconciling Ministries Network.
Why this matters
“I can assure you that they will not vote to become a reconciling church,” Bishop Dorff responded to me in a later email. “Their vote will be only whether or not they join the Reconciling Ministries Network.”
Ultimately, University UM Church did both.
The wording of the ballot made it clear that the ruling of the Judicial Council had been violated. By calling itself “a member of RMN” and placing the phrase “A Reconciling Congregation” on its website and other communications, UUMC has identified or labeled itself as an unofficial body or movement.
When this Church Conference was called for, District Superintendent Bobbi Kaye Jones should have ruled the meeting out of order. She did not.
When he was made aware of this action, Bishop Dorff should have upheld and enforced the Judicial Council decisions and the Book of Discipline. He did not.
Why does the action of University UM Church matter? In a word, it’s all about covenant. As an elder in the United Methodist Church, I am in covenant with all other elders, bishops and district superintendents included.
The Discipline defines that covenant in Paragraph 306: “An order is a covenant community within the church to mutually support, care for, and hold accountable its members for the sake of the life and mission of the church” (emphasis added).
This is serious business.
This whole debate began in the 1990s when my home conference in Northwest Texas voted to become a “Confessing Conference.” This action was challenged and the Judicial Council rulings cited above were made. Any church or conference that had declared itself as affiliated with the Confessing Movement or Reconciling Movement were asked to remove any mention of it from their signage and printed materials.
The Confessing Movement churches and conferences complied. But as the Reconciling Ministries Network continues enlisting churches in its cause, the bishops are turning a blind eye.
Because of the vows I took as a member of the order of elders, I am compelled to speak up. I will not be silent.
Wesley Putnam is a full-time United Methodist evangelist and a member of the Northwest Texas Annual Conference. He is the former president of the National Association of United Methodist Evangelists.
by Steve | May 25, 2011 | Magazine Articles
By Liza Kittle
In a historic vote, the Women’s Division Board of Directors voted unanimously to “structurally separate” from the General Board of Global Ministries (GBGM) and become an independent agency within the United Methodist Church. The action took place at its spring semi-annual meeting April 7-11 in Stamford, Connecticut.
While separate, the plan states that the Women’s Division will be “missionally connected to GBGM, and would intentionally release seats at the GBGM Board of Directors…to make it possible for GBGM to add additional representation from Central Conferences within a smaller board.”
Later that week, the Directors of the General Board of Global Ministries affirmed the proposal from the Women’s Division. The directors also voted to reduce their number from 92 to 32—a recommendation from the board’s executive committee.
Key components of the new Women’s Division-GBGM relationship plan include:
• The Women’s Division would have 5 seats on the 32 member GBGM Board of Directors. (Currently, the Women’s Division makes up 30-40 percent of the GBGM Board of Directors as mandated by the Discipline.)
• Women’s Division staff would continue to operate the UM Office at the United Nations on behalf of both GBGM and WD at the Church Center for the UN, which is owned by the WD.
The structural separation plan will now be presented to the 2012 General Conference in legislative form.
Other major organizational changes concerning United Methodist Women were also approved today by the Women’s Division Board of Directors:
• The name “Women’s Division” will be replaced with “United Methodist Women, Inc.,” and the organization will now be classified as an agency of the United Methodist Church.
• The term “unit” will be replaced with “local organization of UMW” and each local organization would organize as they see fit.
• A new Board of Directors of UMW, Inc. will be created with 25 members (20 elected from jurisdictional organizations of UMW and 5 nominated by a special committee to ensure diversity). The current board size is 50 members.
• A UMW Program Advisory Group would be created, made up of 70-80 members, which would meet annually and be responsible for recommending to the Board of Directors major program directions, strategic plans, and plans for Schools of Christian Mission, leadership training, social policies, Reading Program, and Assembly.
The rationale and impetus behind these major structural changes being proposed by the Women’s Division reflect a pro-active position toward impending structural reorganizations across the general church.
Renew prays that these historic changes reflect a willingness by the Women’s Division to adapt to the realities facing the United Methodist Church as a whole, and the organization of United Methodist Women in particular. These realities for UMW include continued dramatic membership loss and revenue decline. (See www.renew-network.org for a current report on UMW membership and financial structure.)
Hopefully, in the midst of promoting flexibility in structure and reaching more women within the UM Church, the Women’s Division will understand the need to embrace other women’s ministry models within the church in addition to United Methodist Women. Building vital congregations means building vital women’s ministry programs across the UM Church.
What remains to be seen is whether these changes mean that the Women’s Division will be supportive of other women’s ministries that are not under the auspices of United Methodist Women, Inc. Although the leadership organization of UMW is advocating flexibility, there has been no indication of support for other ministry models that have a different theological and ministerial focus.
Renew represents women who believe that evangelism is a key component in Christian witness, that maintaining the historic, biblical tenets of Methodism are critical, and that leftist political advocacy doesn’t represent their core values. The feminist theology and leftist political activism of the Women’s Division will never mesh with the more orthodox, conservative leanings of many women within the United Methodist Church. These irreconcilable differences mean that supplemental woman’s ministry vehicles apart from UMW, Inc. will be essential for a thriving and vital denomination.
Liza Kittle is the President of the Renew Network (www.renew-network.org), P.O. Box 16055, Augusta, GA 30919; telephone: 706-364-0166.
by Steve | May 25, 2011 | Magazine Articles
By Kathy L. Gilbert
Tiffany Chartier sees beauty in chaos and disease.
As a professional photographer and youth director of CHAOS (Challenge, Honor, Acceptance, Outreach and Serve) at Community of Hope United Methodist Church, Mansfield, Texas, she has created a unique ministry for herself: taking “affirmation” photos of young people starting on their spiritual journey and capturing some of the final moments of people dealing with cancer.
“Photography is a form of ministry for me. It always has been. It is just another avenue of expressing God’s love in a different art form,” she said. She is doing all this while dealing with retinitis pigmentosa, a genetic eye condition that will eventually make her blind. She only has 25 percent of her vision left.
“Because I am going blind I give more freely of the talents God gave me,” she said. “And because I’m going blind I refuse to be stingy with joy.
“Retinitis pigmentosa is a degenerative hereditary eye disease that starts by night vision—loss of night vision—and then slowly steals (like a thief) your peripheral vision so eventually what you see is like looking through a tiny, tiny straw. And eventually it’ll just…all close.”
Chartier said her lack of peripheral vision is not as much of a challenge as you might think because she doesn’t “just take a picture,” she “captures a story.”
Hank and Jan’s story
Hank Wyatt and his wife, Jan, got some bad news in February 2010. The cancer they thought Hank had conquered years ago had come back with a vengeance.
A tumor in his arm lead to the diagnosis of Stage IV lung cancer. His doctor wouldn’t tell them how much time he had left, but Jan did some research and found out the average survival rate was two to four months.
The Wyatts are members of Community of Hope United Methodist Church, and they knew about Chartier’s ministry. They wanted some “happy” photos of themselves for their children and grandchildren.
“I think because her vision is narrowing she focuses in on what is important,” Hank said.
Life has changed a lot in the past year, he said. The photos by Chartier are now hanging in their bedroom.
“We’ve had Christmases and birthday parties and anniversaries that we didn’t know we were going to have. So when those things come to you and you know you are playing the bonus round, you just learn to enjoy every one of ‘em,” he said.
Affirmation stories
“I like to use the talent that God has given me and empower young men and women through photography. And how I do that is with something called ‘affirmation shoots’ and ‘self-confidence shoots,’” Chartier said.
She has the young person list seven positive traits about themselves before she takes their picture.
“I know photography helps people in their spiritual journey because I truly believe that every single person has an awesome, amazing soul that’s probably just allowed life to settle on them and make them a little dusty and rusty,” Chartier said.
The name of her photography company is SGLY (Smile, God Loves You). The mission of her company is to give back.
“And the joy of photography is to be able to take a snapshot of that one emotion and that one particular moment in their life,” she said. “And then they can look back on it and see how far they’ve come in their journey. And it’s beautiful, exciting. Sometimes it’s tragic.”
More than anything, she hopes the photos are helpful.
Chartier’s story
When she was 15 years old, she went with her father to the Retina Foundation of the Southwest, where her father was diagnosed with retinitis pigmentosa. Chartier was there for moral support; neither she nor her father planned for her to be tested, but the doctors requested it.
She remembers the doctor’s words: “Doug Winters, I need to tell you that yes, you do have retinitis pigmentosa, as well as your daughter. And not only does your daughter have it, she has it worse than you do.”
“We walked out, got into the car. Dad was fumbling around for his keys, put ‘em in the ignition, grabbed the steering wheel and just lost it,” she said. “The only thing he said to me was, ‘I’m sorry. I am so, so sorry.’”
Chartier’s oldest son also has the condition.
When she heard the news, she said she was transported back to that moment when she was 15.
“Except this time I was the one fumbling with the keys and trying to find the steering wheel and trying to get a grip literally—get a grip. And I told him the same words that I’ve been carrying around in my mind and heart for years, ‘I am so sorry.’ That’s exactly what I said to him. I literally became my father in that moment and understood the magnitude of helplessness and responsibility knowing that the only reason why your child has this is because you do.”
Chartier said sometimes she feels angry and sad but she is always reminded to look to God.
“I am 110 percent filled with peace because of Jesus,” she said.
“I try to live every single day with purposeful passion. I try to give that to the youth and to my kids with energy and being positive, and hopefully fulfilling my purpose, which I believe is to be a light for Christ.”
Kathy L. Gilbert is a multimedia reporter for the young adult content team at United Methodist Communications, Nashville, Tennessee. Jess Warnock, a freelance producer in Columbus, Ohio, provided the interview for this story.
