MethodistThinker.com
News, commentary, source documents, podcasts, history, prayers
Archive for the 'General Conference' Category
Party platforms and the UMC, part two
Posted in Book of Discipline, Doctrine, Ethics, General Conference, Holiness, Politics, Social Issues, United Methodist Church, tagged UMC, United Methodist Church on October 29, 2012|
This the second of two posts comparing the United Methodist "platform" (i.e., language from the UM Book of Discipline) with the official platforms of the Democratic and Republican parties. This post focuses on two issues: marriage and national security.
As noted in part one, for Christians living in a democratic society electing government leaders is a stewardship responsibility.
UMNS graphic
Elections give followers of Christ the opportunity act through the political process to advance a "Christian worldview" that promotes justice, virtue, and freedom. In the words of the United Methodist Book of Discipline, "The church should continually exert a strong ethical influence upon the state" (¶164B).
Even so, it is worth keeping in mind that the role of the church and the role of the state are not one and the same.
The official United Methodist Church positions quoted below have been approved by various sessions of the UM General Conference and are included in The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church 2012 (forthcoming).
Democratic Party positions are from The 2012 Democratic National Platform: Moving America Forward (full text in PDF). Republican Party positions are quoted from 2012 Republican Platform: We Believe in America (full text in PDF).
Issues and parties are listed in alphabetical order. The side-by-side comparisons are presented without editorial commentary, except except for one clarifying note.
ISSUE: Marriage and Family
The UMC
We joyfully receive for ourselves and others the blessings of community, sexuality, marriage, and the family.
We believe the family to be the basic human community through which persons are nurtured and sustained in mutual love, responsibility, respect, and fidelity. We affirm the importance of loving parents for all children….
We affirm the sanctity of the marriage covenant that is expressed in love, mutual support, personal commitment, and shared fidelity between a man and a woman.
We believe that God's blessing rests upon such marriage, whether or not there are children of the union….
We support laws in civil society that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman….
God's plan is for lifelong, faithful marriage. The church must be on the forefront of premarital, marital, and postmarital counseling in order to create and preserve strong marriages. However, when a married couple is estranged beyond reconciliation, even after thoughtful consideration and counsel, divorce is a regrettable alternative in the midst of brokenness.
We grieve over the devastating emotional, spiritual, and economic consequences of divorce for all involved, understanding that women and especially children are disproportionately impacted by such burdens. As the church we are concerned about high divorce rates…. We…support efforts by governments to reform divorce laws and other aspects of family law in order to address negative trends such as high divorce rates….
Although all persons are sexual beings whether or not they are married, sexual relations are affirmed only with the covenant of monogamous, heterosexual marriage….
Violent, disrespectful, or abusive sexual expressions do not confirm sexuality as God's good gift. We reject all sexual expressions that damage the humanity God has given us as birthright, and we affirm only that sexual expression that enhances that same humanity. We believe that sexual relations where one or both partners are exploitative, abusive, or promiscuous are beyond the parameters of acceptable Christian behavior and are ultimately destructive to individuals, families, and the social order. The Democratic Party
We support marriage equality* and support the movement to secure equal treatment under law for same-sex couples. We also support the freedom of churches and religious entities to decide how to administer marriage as a religious sacrament without government interference.
We oppose discriminatory federal and state constitutional amendments and other attempts to deny equal protection of the laws to committed same-sex couples who seek the same respect and responsibilities as other married couples. We support the full repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and the passage of the Respect for Marriage Act.
[*MThinker note: That is, marriage should not be restricted to one man/one woman. A man should be allowed to marry a man, and a woman should be allowed to marry a woman.]
The Republican Party
The institution of marriage is the foundation of civil society. Its success as an institution will determine our success as a nation….
Children raised in intact married families are more likely to attend college, are physically and emotionally healthier, are less likely to use drugs or alcohol, engage in crime, or get pregnant outside of marriage. The success of marriage directly impacts the economic well-being of individuals.
Furthermore, the future of marriage affects freedom. The lack of family formation not only leads to more government costs, but also to more government control over the lives of its citizens in all aspects.
We recognize and honor the courageous efforts of those who bear the many burdens of parenting alone, even as we believe that marriage, the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard, a goal to stand for, encourage, and promote through laws governing marriage.
We embrace the principle that all Americans should be treated with respect and dignity.
ISSUE: Military readiness / National security / Arms control
We dedicate ourselves to peace throughout the world, to the rule of justice and law among nations, and to individual freedom for all people of the world.
We believe war is incompatible with the teachings and example of Christ. We therefore reject war as an instrument of national foreign policy….
We insist that the first moral duty of all nations is to work together to resolve by peaceful means every dispute that arises between or among them.
We advocate the extension and strengthening of international treaties and institutions that provide a framework within the rule of law for responding to aggression, terrorism, and genocide.
We believe that human values outweigh military claims as governments determine their priorities; that the militarization of society must be challenged and stopped; that the manufacture, sale, and deployment of armaments must be reduced and controlled; and that the production, possession, or use of nuclear weapons be condemned. Consequently, we endorse general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.
From the beginning, the Christian conscience has struggled with the harsh realities of violence and war, for these evils clearly frustrate God's loving purposes for humankind. We yearn for the day when there will be no more war and people will live together in peace and justice.
Some of us believe that war, and other acts of violence, are never acceptable to Christians. We also acknowledge that many Christians believe that, when peaceful alternatives have failed, the force of arms may regretfully be preferable to unchecked aggression, tyranny, and genocide.
We honor the witness of pacifists who will not allow us to become complacent about war and violence. We also respect those who support the use of force, but only in extreme situations and only when the need is clearly beyond reasonable doubt, and through appropriate international organizations.
We urge the establishment of the rule of law in international affairs as a means of elimination of war, violence, and coercion in these affairs….
We are aware that we can become guilty both by military action and by conscientious objection, and that we all are dependent on God's forgiveness.
After more than a decade of war, we have an opportunity to retool our armed forces and our defense strategy to ensure we both maintain the world's most capable military and adapt to the challenges of the 21st century….
[W]e have a special obligation to every soldier, sailor, airman, Marine, and Coast Guardsman who puts their [sic] life on the line for our nation. We must send them into harm's way only when it's absolutely necessary….
[W]e will continue to emphasize forward engagement in critical regions, while enhancing robust security partnerships to share the burden….
[W]e must address the threat that nuclear weapons pose to our security and to peace in the world. Despite the two decades that have passed since the end of the Cold War, large stockpiles of nuclear weapons persist, and more nations are interested in acquiring them. Nuclear testing and black-market trade in sensitive nuclear materials continue. And terrorists remain determined to buy, build, or steal the ultimate weapon.
[We] are committed to preventing the further spread of nuclear weapons and to eventually ridding the planet of these catastrophic weapons.
[E]nding "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in full cooperation with our military leadership…reflects Democrats' belief that all Americans deserve the same chance to…serve their country….
We are the party of peace through strength…. We must deter any adversary who would attack us or use terror as a tool of government. Every potential enemy must have no doubt that our capabilities, our commitment, and our will to defeat them are clear, unwavering, and unequivocal….
We will accept no arms control agreement that limits our right to self-defense; and we will fully deploy a missile defense shield for the people of the United States and for our allies….
We recognize that the gravest terror threat we face — a nuclear attack made possible by nuclear proliferation — requires a comprehensive strategy for reducing the world's nuclear stockpiles and preventing the spread of those armaments. But the U.S. can lead that effort only if it maintains an effective strategic arsenal at a level sufficient to fulfill its deterrent purposes….
We reject the use of the military as a platform for social experimentation and will not accept attempts to undermine military priorities and mission readiness….
We support rights of conscience and religious freedom for military chaplains and people of faith…. We will enforce and defend in court the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in the Armed Forces as well as in the civilian world….
• Worth reading: 'Forgetting How to Blush: United Methodism's Compromise with the Sexual Revolution'
• What is at stake in the battle over marriage
• Why the United Methodist Church cannot condone homosexuality
• Bishop Mack Stokes: Holiness in human sexuality
• Renewal & Reform Coalition responds to retired bishops' call to alter UMC's sexuality standards
• Judicial Council says no to same-sex marriage
• Bishop Lindsey Davis: The Church in time of war
Related articles and information
• 2012 Party Platform Comparison Guide (PDF) | Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention
• What they believe: Both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama come from traditions far from Christian orthodoxy | Jamie Dean, WORLD (Oct. 20, 2012)
• White Mainline Protestants going for GOP presidential candidate Romney by nearly 2-to-1 margin (60% to 34%) (click tab that says "White Mainline Protestants") | Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life (Oct. 9, 2012)
• In bid to galvanize homosexual vote, Obama endorses state initiatives that would OK same-sex marriage Reuters (Oct. 25, 2012)
• Obama campaign releases ad — targeted to young women — comparing voting to having sexual intercourse (video)
• The campaign for immorality | John MacArthur, Grace to You (Oct. 1, 2012)
• United Methodists uphold policy that calls homosexuality 'incompatible with Christian teaching' | Daniel Burke, Religion News Service (May 3, 2012)
• The church addresses marriage and sexuality | Thomas A. Lambrecht, Good News (January/February 2012)
• Christianity elevates sexual morality (a historical overview of the Christian church's teaching on sexual morality) — Chapter 3 of How Christianity Changed the World | Alvin Schmidt (Zondervan, 2004 — via Google Books)
Party platforms and the UMC, part one
Posted in Book of Discipline, Doctrine, Ethics, General Conference, Politics, Social Issues, United Methodist Church, tagged UMC, United Methodist Church on October 22, 2012|
For Christians living in a democratic society, electing government leaders is a stewardship responsibility, presenting followers of Christ with an opportunity to influence government in the direction of policies that promote virtue and restrain evil.
In deciding how to cast their ballots, Christian voters should consider reflect on how the positions of the major political parties align with official church positions on particular issues.
The two main political parties in the U.S. tend to disagree more about means than ends, although on some issues significant disagreement exists about ends as well (most notably on tax policy, marriage policy, and issues related to the sanctity of human life).
This post, the first of two parts, compares United Methodist teaching on several major issues with the official platforms of both the Democratic and Republican parties. The side-by-side comparisons below are without commentary, except for two clarifying notes.
The United Methodist Church positions quoted below have been approved by various sessions of the UM General Conference and are found in The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church 2012 (forthcoming).
Issues and parties are listed in alphabetical order. Additional issues will be covered in part two of this post.
ISSUE: Abortion
…Our belief in the sanctity of unborn human life makes us reluctant to approve abortion. But we are equally bound to respect the sacredness of the life and well-being of the mother and the unborn child. We recognize tragic conflicts of life with life that may justify abortion, and in such cases we support the legal option of abortion under proper medical procedures by certified medical providers.
We support parental, guardian, or other responsible adult notification and consent before abortions can be performed on girls who have not yet reached the age of legal adulthood.
We cannot affirm abortion as an acceptable means of birth control,* and we unconditionally reject it as a means of gender selection or eugenics.
We oppose the use of late-term abortion known as dilation and extraction (partial-birth abortion) and call for the end of this practice except when the physical life of the mother is in danger and no other medical procedure is available, or in the case of severe fetal anomalies incompatible with life….
The Church shall offer ministries to reduce unintended pregnancies. We commit our Church to continue to provide nurturing ministries to those who terminate a pregnancy, to those in the midst of a crisis pregnancy, and to those who give birth….
Young adult women disproportionately face situations in which they feel that they have no choice [but to abort a pregnancy] due to financial, educational, relational, or other circumstances beyond their control.
The Church and its local congregations and campus ministries should be in the forefront of supporting existing ministries and developing new ministries that help such women in their communities.
They should also support those crisis pregnancy centers and pregnancy resource centers that compassionately help women explore all options related to unplanned pregnancy.
We particularly encourage the Church, the government, and social service agencies to support and facilitate the option of adoption.
We affirm and encourage the Church to assist the ministry of crisis pregnancy centers and pregnancy resource centers that compassionately help women find feasible alternatives to abortion….
[*MThinker note: A 2005 study found that 74 percent of women having abortions chose to abort their pregnancies because having a child "would dramatically change my life." This suggests, at a minimum, that nearly three-fourths of abortions are for reasons of birth control. A 2002 study found that 54 percent of women having abortions had used contraception during the month they became pregnant, suggesting that abortion is widely seen as a birth control "back-up plan."]
The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay.** We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way.
We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. We strongly and unequivocally support a woman's decision to have a child by providing affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including caring adoption programs.
[**MThinker note: In other words, a third party — either government or government-mandated insurance — should cover the cost for those who who lack the means to pay for an abortion.]
…[W]e assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed….We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it….
We all have a moral obligation to assist, not to penalize, women struggling with the challenges of an unplanned pregnancy.
We salute those who provide them alternatives, including pregnancy care centers, and we take pride in the tremendous increase in adoptions that has followed Republican legislative initiatives….
[W]e assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed…. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or fund organizations which perform or advocate it and will not fund or subsidize health care which includes abortion coverage….
We call for legislation to ban sex-selective abortions — gender discrimination in its most lethal form — and to protect from abortion unborn children who are capable of feeling pain….
We seek to protect young girls from exploitation through a parental consent requirement; and we affirm our moral obligation to assist, rather than penalize, women challenged by an unplanned pregnancy….
ISSUE: Environment
We believe in God, Creator of the world; and in Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of creation….
We affirm the natural world as God's handiwork and dedicate ourselves to its preservation, enhancement, and faithful use by humankind….
We believe in the right…to property as a trust from God….
All creation is the Lord's, and we are responsible for the ways we use and abuse it.
Water, air, soil, minerals, energy resources, plants, animal life, and space are to be valued and conserved because they are God's creation and not solely because they are useful to human beings.
God has granted us stewardship of creation. We should meet these stewardship duties through acts of loving care and respect.
Economic, political, social, and technological developments have increased our human numbers, and lengthened and enriched our lives. However, these developments have led to regional defoliation, dramatic extinction of species, massive human suffering, overpopulation, and misuse and overconsumption of natural and nonrenewable resources, particularly by industrialized societies.
This continued course of action jeopardizes the natural heritage that God has entrusted to all generations. Therefore, let us recognize the responsibility of the church and its members to place a high priority on changes in economic, political, social, and technological lifestyles to support a more ecologically equitable and sustainable world leading to a higher quality of life for all of God's creation. The Democratic Party
…Pollutants like nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and mercury are a threat to human health, and Democrats will continue to stand up to polluters in the interest of environmental and public health.
We know that global climate change is one of the biggest threats of this generation — an economic, environmental, and national security catastrophe in the making. We affirm the science of climate change, commit to significantly reducing the pollution that causes climate change, and know we have to meet this challenge by driving smart policies that lead to greater growth in clean energy generation and result in a range of economic and social benefits….
We understand that global climate change may disproportionately affect the poor, and we are committed to environmental justice….
…[T]he Republican Party believes in the moral obligation of the people to be good stewards of the God-given natural beauty and resources of our country and bases environmental policy on several common-sense principles. For example, we believe people are the most valuable resource, and human health and safety are the most important measurements of success….
Experience has shown that, in caring for the land and water, private ownership has been our best guarantee of conscientious stewardship, while the worst instances of environmental degradation have occurred under government control…. It makes sense that those closest to a situation are best able to determine its remedy. That is why a site- and situation-specific approach to an environmental problem is more likely to solve it, instead of a national rule based on the ideological concerns of politicized central planning….
ISSUE: Health care / Medical research
…Stewardship of health is the responsibility of each person to whom health has been entrusted.
Creating the personal, environmental, and social conditions in which health can thrive is a joint responsibility — public and private….
Providing the care needed to maintain health, prevent disease, and restore health after injury or illness is a responsibility each person owes others and government owes to all…
Like police and fire protection, health care is best funded through the government's ability to tax each person equitably and directly fund the provider entities….
The right to health care includes care for persons with brain diseases, neurological conditions, or physical disabilities, who must be afforded the same access to health care as all other persons in our communities….
We believe it is a governmental responsibility to provide all citizens with health care.
We oppose the cloning of humans and the genetic manipulation of the gender of an unborn child.
Because of the effects of genetic technologies on all life, we call for effective guidelines and public accountability to safeguard against any action that might lead to abuse of these technologies, including political or military ends. We recognize that cautious, well-intended use of genetic technologies may sometimes lead to unanticipated harmful consequences.
We believe accessible, affordable, high quality health care is part of the American promise, that Americans should have the security that comes with good health care, and that no one should go broke because they get sick….
As a result of our efforts, today, young Americans entering the workforce can stay on their parents' plans. Insurers can no longer refuse to cover kids with pre-existing medical conditions. Insurance companies will no longer be able to arbitrarily cap and cancel coverage, or charge women more simply because of their gender. People with private insurance are getting preventive services like cancer screenings, annual well-woman visits, and FDA-approved contraception with no out-of-pocket costs….
We believe that taking care of one's health is an individual responsibility. Chronic diseases, many of them related to lifestyle, drive healthcare costs, accounting for more than 75 percent of the nation's medical spending. To reduce demand, and thereby lower costs, we must foster personal responsibility while increasing preventive services to promote healthy lifestyles.
We believe that all Americans should have improved access to affordable, coordinated, quality healthcare, including individuals struggling with mental illness….
We call on the government to permanently ban all federal funding and subsidies for abortion and healthcare plans that include abortion coverage….
We call for expanded support for the stem-cell research that now offers the greatest hope for many afflictions…without the destruction of embryonic human life. We urge a ban on human cloning and on the creation of or experimentation on human embryos….
We oppose the FDA approval of Mifeprex, formerly known as RU-486, and similar drugs that terminate innocent human life after conception….
• Bishop Timothy Whitaker: United Methodists must stand against 'violence of abortion'
• How did the UMC come to define health care as a 'right'?
• Book review: 'Methodism and Politics in the Twentieth Century'
• UM renewal leader: 'The UMC is worth fighting for'
• United Methodist Church facing health bill fallout
• House Speaker thanks UMC for help in passing health bill
• UM pro-life group urges Sen. Ben Nelson: 'Do no harm'
• 'Church and Society' decries pro-life amendment to health bill
• President Barack Obama's pro-abortion record | Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com (Oct. 21, 2012)
• The Obama Democrats: This isn't the party of FDR, Truman, JFK or Clinton | Daniel Henninger, The Wall Street Journal (Sept. 12, 2012)
• Missed opportunity to vote for life | Rob Renfroe, Good News (September-October 2012)
• United Methodist Bishop Scott Jones addresses pro-life event | Connor Ewing, IRD (Jan. 22, 2010)
• United Methodists and abortion today | Bishop Timothy Whitaker (Feb. 9, 2009)
• United Methodism on abortion | Paul T. Stallsworth, On the Square—First Things (May 29, 2008)
• United Methodist Church continues decades-long crawl to pro-life direction | John Lomperis, LifeNews.com (May 23, 2008)
• The sanctification of human life (a historical overview of the Christian church's position on abortion and other issues related to the sanctity of human life) — Chapter 2 of How Christianity Changed the World | Alvin Schmidt (Zondervan, 2004 — via Google Books)
Worth reading: 'Forgetting How to Blush: United Methodism's Compromise with the Sexual Revolution'
Posted in Book of Discipline, Christian/Methodist History, Doctrine, General Conference, Holiness, Social Issues, tagged UMC, United Methodist Church on September 17, 2012|
The following book summary is by Riley B. Case, associate executive director of the Confessing Movement Within the United Methodist Church.
Dr. Riley B. Case
Dr. Case served for many years as a pastor and district superintendent in the UMC's North Indiana Conference (now the Indiana Conference), and he has been a delegate to five UM General Conferences.
He is the author of Evangelical and Methodist: A Popular History (Abingdon Press).
This piece was first published in a different form in the Confessing Movement's e-publication, "Happenings Around the Church."
Links and subheadings below have been added by MethodistThinker.com. — Ed.
Forgetting How to Blush: United Methodism's Compromise with the Sexual Revolution (Bristol House, 2012) is a thoroughly researched, heavily footnoted account of efforts, strategies, schemes, and attempts on the part of non-Christian — or at least quasi-Christian — persons, groups, caucuses, and in some cases church leaders, to secularize historic Christian truth in regard to human sexuality.
Author Karen Booth, director of Transforming Congregations, begins with Alfred Kinsey and his studies on human sexuality. Kinsey influenced Hugh Hefner, who chafed under the restraints of traditional biblical morality (Hefner grew up in a conservative Methodist home).
Hugh Hefner not only started Playboy magazine, he also gave a major grant to fund the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS). SIECUS was interested in values-neutral sex education, which basically ignores biblical moral teaching.
Remarkably, SIECUS had ties with the Methodist General Board of Education Task Force on Sex Education, which operated under the assumption that the church's "negative" views toward sexuality needed adjusting.
In the 1960s, youth ministry in the Methodist Church was undergoing a philosophical shift. Youth, so we were told, did not want others — including their parents or the church — to tell them what to do. They wanted "freedom" and "equality."
Under the sway of progressive pressures, the 1972 General Conference did away with the Methodist Youth Fellowship (MYF) and legislated a new agency, the National Council on Youth Ministry (NCYM). That group, among other things, gave grants to homosexual-advocacy groups.
Trying to be 'relevant'
The church bureaucracy was already on board. As early as 1962 the Methodist Church had published a resource Sex and the Whole Person which essentially substituted the latest (secular) psychological insights for traditional teaching about faithfulness in marriage and celibacy in singleness. Sex and the Whole Person spoke of Freud and sexual repression. It emphasized that in sexual matters seldom is there a right and wrong, but shades of grey. There were no moral absolutes.
At the time of The Methodist Church-Evangelical United Brethren merger in 1968, the editors of church school material indicated that sex education would be one of their top priorities. Meanwhile in its March-April, 1969 issue, Motive magazine — the church's paper for young adults — printed an article by Del Margin and Phyllis Lyon, co-founders of a lesbian-advocacy group. (The UMC had the sense to stop publication of Motive in 1971).
In the mid-1970s, Leon Smith of the Board of Discipleship commented on "positive" trends he saw in the church's response to the new sexuality — from rigid rules to situational ethics; a new toleration of private, consensual acts; the recognition of positive uses of pornography; and a new understandings of homosexual activity (understood now as a "variant" rather than "deviant").
If the church believed that this attempt to be "culturally relevant" would enhance youth ministry it was sadly mistaken. Over a 10-year period the circulation of youth materials fell from 1.2 million pieces per quarter to 400,000 and the youth staff at Nashville went from 13 full-time persons to one part-time employee. (Melvin Talbert, now a retired bishop who urges clergy and laity to defy the UMC's sexuality standards, was the general secretary of the Board of Discipleship at that time.)
To their credit, a number of bishops and church leaders were not pleased with the direction in which progressives were leading the church in the area of human sexuality. A few leaders spoke out on behalf of the church's traditional stance, and Curriculum Resources toned down some of the more extreme studies.
The push to normalize homosexual relationships
Those biblically orthodox leaders were further tested by the onslaught of homosexual-practice advocacy that has characterized some parts of The United Methodist Church since 1970.
Karen Booth
Had it not been for an amendment from the floor at the 1972 General Conference that inserted into the Social Principles language that says the UMC "does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers it incompatible with Christian teaching" (now in ¶161F in the Book of Discipline), The United Methodist Church likely would have been the first mainline denomination to neutralize biblical teaching about homosexual practice.
Tellingly, since 1972 no general agency of the church has petitioned the General Conference to uphold traditional teachings on marriage, the family and human sexuality.
Before the 1980 General Conference, every agency and every caucus that petitioned General Conference in regard to homosexual practice — except for the renewal ministry Good News — urged the church to set aside its orthodox stance on homosexual practice. For its efforts Good News was labeled "intolerant" and "hateful."
The United Methodist General Board of Church and Society claims to advocate positions taken by the General Conference, but in the area of marriage the board is silent. It is also silent in the area of affirming the sexual ethic of faithfulness in marriage and celibacy in singleness (¶161B and ¶161F).
GBCS does indicate that the church must seek to eradicate "heterosexism" and "homophobia," but when it comes to the UMC's statement that "the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching," GBCS is silent. At one time the church sought to enrich marriages. But in a current GBCS list of 20 key issues facing the church and society, marriage is not even mentioned.
The United Methodist Book of Discipline prohibits the use apportionment money to "promote the acceptance of homosexuality" (¶613.20 and ¶806.9). This doesn't mean that those in the church who want to bless homosexual relationships and to change the definition of marriage are without funding and support.
Karen Booth traces some of this money and support, most of which comes from groups outside The United Methodist Church, including:
Welcoming Church Movement/Institute for Welcoming Resources;
Soulforce;
The Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice and Healing;
Faith in America;
The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Foundation;
The Human Rights Campaign: Religion and Faith Program;
Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLADD);
Believe Out Loud.
Major funding for these organizations — and for caucuses within mainline churches — comes from groups such as the Arcus Foundation, which from 2007 to 2011 has made 150 grants totaling almost $20 million to "religion and values" initiatives.
Two UM groups, Reconciling Ministries Network (RMN) and Methodist Federation for Social Action (MFSA), received almost $850,000.
From LGBTfunders.org
The Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund has given $10 million in the same four-year period to "allies" who work among clergy and congregations for "marriage equality."
The E. Rhodes and Leona B. Carpenter Foundation gives money to seminaries that support the homosexual agenda. In 2009, it gave grants totaling $75,000 to the Church Within a Church Movement (PDF), Dumbarton UM Church in Washington D.C., and the Reconciling Ministries Network.
Karen Booth asks an interesting question: Does The United Methodist Church understand the implications of outsider money flowing into the church with the specific agenda of subverting the church's teaching on human sexuality? Have any church leaders expressed concern over this?
A healing gospel
The typical reaction on the part of progressives to a work such as Forgetting How to Blush is to rant about "homophobia" and "hatefulness." However, it would be difficult to label the movement Karen Booth heads, Transforming Congregations, as a homophobic and hateful group.
Many of those associated with Transforming Congregations have known sexual brokenness themselves and have experienced rejection on the part of the church. But they believe that the gospel of Jesus Christ offers healing, and they give testimony to healing that has taken place in their own lives.
Forgetting How to Blush (the title is from Jeremiah 6:15 and 8:12) is not an encouraging book. It is a sober account of "United Methodism's Compromise with the Sexual Revolution," an account that suggests intense spiritual warfare is taking place in The United Methodist Church.
But hope remains. Most local UM churches and ordinary church members have refused to follow the progressives in their effort to follow the secular world in regard to human sexuality.
• Group of clergy, laity calls for censure of Bishop Talbert
• The UM position on marriage and sexuality is stronger than anything Dan Cathy said
• Chasing away young people by being faithful to the gospel?
• Should United Methodists agree to disagree on homosexuality?
• A word from Mr. Wesley: Holiness in singleness
• Renewal & Reform Coalition releases letter to Council of Bishops
• In GBCS article, UM elder argues against celibacy for single clergy
• In embracing homosexual marriage, Foundry UMC rejects UM boundaries, breaks with 2 millennia of church teaching
• Board of Church and Society sex-ed writer: Sex outside of marriage can be 'moral, ethical'
• Endorsements for Forgetting How to Blush | Bristol House
• 'Behavior Doesn't Interrupt Your Relationship with Christ': A Recipe for Disaster | Ben Witherington, ChristianityToday.com (July 12, 2012)
• Book Review: Forgetting How To Blush: United Methodism's Compromise with the Sexual Revolution by Karen Booth | James V. Heidinger II, Good News (March/April 2012)
• UM clergy vow to wed homosexual couples | Sam Hodges, UM Reporter (July 15, 2011)
• Eros defended or eros defiled — What do Wesley and the Bible say? | Ben Witherington, The Bible and Culture (Patheos.com) (Feb. 14, 2011)
• United Methodism in crisis: Scriptural renewal through the Good News Movement | Chapter 4 of Public Pulpits: Methodists and Mainline Churches in the Moral Argument of Public Life by Steven M. Tipton (University of Chicago Press, 2008 — via Google Books)
• Book: Staying the Course: Supporting the Church's Position on Homosexuality (ordering details) | Maxie Dunnam and H. Newton Malony, ed. (Abingdon Press, 2003)
• United Methodist churches perform same-sex weddings with one foot in the closet | Amanda Hess, TBD.com (Sept. 30, 2010)
• What the evidence really says about Scripture and homosexual practice: Five issues (PDF) | Robert A. J. Gagnon (March 2009)
• How churches can refine message on homosexuality | Robin Russell, United Methodist Reporter (May 19, 2008)
• Homosexuality and the Great Commandment (an address to the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh) | Peter C. Moore (November 2002)
• 'Good News' says push to accept homosexual practice threatens to split United Methodist Church | United Methodist News Service (May 6, 1997)
• The story of Good News: A recollection by Charles W. Keysor (PDF) | Good News (March/April 1981)
• The Junaluska Affirmation: Scriptural Christianity for United Methodists (PDF) | Forum for Scriptural Christianity (Good News) (July 20, 1975)
Group of clergy, laity calls for censure of Bishop Talbert
Posted in Bishops, Book of Discipline, Doctrine, General Conference, Holiness, Social Issues, United Methodist Church, tagged Audio, UMC, United Methodist Church on August 27, 2012|
A group of more than 70 United Methodist clergy and laity is asking the Council of Bishops to censure retired Bishop Melvin Talbert for encouraging UM clergy to disobey the Book of Discipline's prohibition on officiating at homosexual-union ceremonies.
The request came in a July 19 open letter (reproduced below) sent to each bishop. That letter was released publicly last week.
Bishop Talbert speaking in May in Tampa, Fla.
The Discipline notes that sexual relationships between two people of the same sex are "incompatible with Christian teaching" (¶161F) and it prohibits clergy from officiating at union ceremonies that solemnize a relationship between two men or two women (¶2702.1).
At a May 4, 2012, gathering in Tampa, Fla., held on the final day of the United Methodist Church's quadrennial General Conference, Bishop Talbert said existing UM standards on human sexuality are "immoral and unjust and no longer deserve our loyalty and obedience." His remarks came two days after the General Conference voted to maintain the UMC's long-held position on homosexuality.
Bishop Talbert urged clergy who had previously committed to perform union ceremonies for homosexual couples "to stand firm in their resolve to perform marriages among…same-sex couples." Doing so, he noted, would involve "defying the [church] laws that prohibit them from doing so." He also called on local UM churches to host such ceremonies, an action also proscribed by the UMC's Book of Discipline.
Although 14 other UM bishops were in attendance as he spoke, Bishop Talbert said he was not speaking on their behalf or as a representative of the Council of Bishops.
The July 19 letter asking that Bishop Talbert be censured is below, along with audio of Bishop Talbert's May 4 address. Some links below have been added by MethodistThinker.com — Ed.
Dear Bishop ________________ ,
Grace and peace to you in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ! We uphold you in our prayers for the important work that God has entrusted to you on behalf of His church.
We are compelled to write this open letter to you out of deep love for The United Methodist Church. Our unity is once more challenged by the remarks of one of your number and we ask that you take appropriate action to respond.
According to the websites of Methodists In New Directions and the Reconciling Ministries Network, Bishop Melvin Talbert made the following comments on May 4, 2012, at the Love Your Neighbor Tabernacle in Tampa, Florida:
The derogatory rules and restrictions in the Book of Discipline are immoral and unjust and no longer deserve our loyalty and obedience. Thus the time has come for those of us who are faithful to the Gospel of Jesus Christ to do what is required of us….
The time has come to join in an act of Biblical obedience. I call on the more than 1,100 clergy [who have signed marriage initiatives] to stand firm in their resolve to perform marriages for same-sex couples and to do so in the course of their normal pastoral duties, thus defying the laws that prohibit them from doing so….
The time for talking is over. It's time for us to act in defiance of unjust words of immoral and derogatory discrimination and laws that are doing harm to our GLBT [gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, and transgendered] sisters and brothers.
The Reconciling Ministries Network reports that standing with Bishop Talbert were retired Bishops Judy Craig, Violet Fisher, Elias Galvan, Susan Hassinger, Don Ott, Sharon Rader, Roy Sano, and Jack Tuell; and active Bishops Warner Brown, Sally Dyck, Grant Hagiya, Bob Hoshibata, John Schol, and Mary Ann Swenson.
Each bishop of The United Methodist Church has agreed to live within the covenant defined by our Book of Discipline. Each bishop is charged in the Book of Discipline "to uphold the discipline and order of the Church."
Use the audio player below to listen to Bishop Talbert's May 4 address in Tampa:
https://methodistthinker.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/bishop_melvin_talbert_2012_0504.mp3
(If player doesn't work, click here for mp3.)
We are deeply concerned that Bishop Talbert has undercut that very discipline and order, by encouraging dissension, disunity and disobedience, and advocating anarchy and chaos in response to the actions of the 2012 General Conference, taken after focused prayer, study, and holy conferencing.
Sadly, Bishop Talbert reiterated his call for UM pastors to disobey the Book of Discipline and pledged to do so himself, if given the opportunity, when he preached at the ordination service [PDF] on June 16 at the California-Pacific Annual Conference.
Some of the other bishops who stood nearby as Bishop Talbert spoke in Tampa on May 4, 2012
By their action in standing with Bishop Talbert as he made his statement at the Love Your Neighbor Tabernacle, the other bishops appear to have lent their credibility and influence to his call for disobedience.
We have corresponded with all the bishops who stood with Bishop Talbert and received replies from most of them. Some did not know ahead of time what Bishop Talbert was going to say and do not support his call for disobedience. Others did know and do support that call. Without a public statement clarifying where those bishops stand, however, it appears to our church that all were supportive.
In its November 10, 2011 letter [PDF] to United Methodist Sisters and Brothers in Christ, this Council of Bishops declared:
At times like these we call upon each other to remember and renew our covenant with God and with one another as United Methodist Christians. As bishops chosen, consecrated and assigned by the Church, we declare once again our commitment to be faithful to this covenant we have made. As the Council of Bishops we will uphold the Book of Discipline as established by General Conference.
The actions of Bishop Talbert specifically, and any of those retired and active bishops who stood with him, knowing what he was prepared to say, directly contravene this commitment made by the Council of Bishops as a whole. We commend the commitment of the Council of Bishops to be intentional in holding one another mutually accountable to the office and responsibilities of bishops as outlined in our Book of Discipline.
Now is the time for you to demonstrate your commitment by acting to hold these who have been disobedient to the order and discipline of The United Methodist Church accountable for their inflammatory actions. We ask that:
the executive committee of the Council of Bishops and the colleges of bishops in the various jurisdictional and central conferences when they next meet publicly censure Bishop Talbert for his statement;
the executive committee of the Council of Bishops request that those retired and active bishops who stood with Bishop Talbert as he called for disobedience to the Book of Discipline issue specific statements repudiating Bishop Talbert's call to perform same-sex unions, and should they fail to do so, publicly censure them for their actions;
the executive committee of the Council of Bishops file a formal complaint against Bishop Melvin Talbert under ¶ 2702 (e) [disobedience to the order and discipline of The United Methodist Church in violating his responsibility to uphold that order and discipline], ¶ 2702 (f) [dissemination of doctrines contrary to the established standards of doctrine of The United Methodist Church], and ¶ 2702 (g) [engaging in behavior that undermines the ministry of another pastor].
We acknowledge that these are challenging days in The United Methodist Church. We affirm our commitment to the Book of Discipline, including its statement "that all persons are individuals of sacred worth, created in the image of God. All persons need the ministry of the Church in their struggles for human fulfillment, as well as the spiritual and emotional care of a fellowship that enables reconciling relationships with God, with others, and with self."
We fully support the Discipline's affirmation [in ¶ 161F] "that God's grace is available to all. We will seek to live together in Christian community, welcoming, forgiving, and loving one another, as Christ has loved and accepted us. We implore families and churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends. We commit ourselves to be in ministry for and with all persons."
We will continue to uphold you in prayer. We will continue to work together to preserve the unity and integrity of The United Methodist Church, and to make disciples for the transformation of the world.
We look forward to the actions you will take in response to this open letter.
The Rev. Ed Robb III, The Woodlands UMC, The Woodlands, Texas
The Rev. Thom Abrahamson, Armona UMC & Lemoore UMC, Lemoore, Calif.
The Rev. John Allen, Flower Mound Trietsch Memorial UMC, Flower Mound, Texas
The Rev. Scott Allred, Aldersgate UMC, Chico, Calif.
Turner Arant, Confessing Movement Board, Sunflower, Miss.
The Rev. Larry Baird, Trinity UMC, President of Confessing Movement Board, Grand Island, N.Y.
The Rev. Richard Bayard, Retired Elder, Visalia, Calif.
The Rev. Bill Bouknight, Associate Director, Confessing Movement, Columbia, S.C.
The Rev. Keith Boyette, Wilderness Community UMC, Chair of Good News Board, Spotsylvania, Va.
The Rev. James Buskirk, Confessing Movement Board, Tulsa, Okla.
The Rev. Riley Case, Associate Director, Confessing Movement, Kokomo, Ind.
The Rev. Bryan Collier, The Orchard UMC, Tupelo, Miss.
The Rev. Robert Collins, Jr., Centenary UMC, Modesto, Calif.
Robert Draper, Good News Board, Hot Springs, Ark.
The Rev. Maxie Dunnam, Confessing Movement Board, Memphis, Tenn.
Mickey Ellis, Confessing Movement Board, Houston, Texas
The Rev. Charles Ferrara, New Life Community Church UMC, New Fairfield, Conn.
The Rev. Scott Field, Wheatland Salem UMC, Good News Board, Naperville, Ill.
The Rev. John Gerlach, Trinity UMC, Windsor, Conn.
The Rev. Robert Gorrell, Church of the Servant, Oklahoma City, Okla.
Judy Graham, Confessing Movement Board, Houston, Texas
The Rev. Ronald Greilich, Elder, Retired, Clovis, Calif.
The Rev. John Grenfell, Jr., Good News Board, Fort Gratiot, Mich.
The Rev. Randall Hageman, Gateway Community UM Congregation, Houston, Texas
The Rev. Rick Hanse, West Hartford UMC, West Hartford, Conn.
The Rev. Chet Harris, Dueber UMC, Canton, Ohio
The Rev. Tom Harrison, Asbury UMC, Tulsa, Okla.
The Rev. Matthew Hartsfield, Van Dyke UMC, Tampa, Fla.
The Rev. Tony Holifield, Central UMC, Fayetteville, Ark.
The Rev. Godfrey Hubert, Foundry UMC, Houston, Texas
The Rev. Kent Jackson, Branford UMC, Branford, Conn.
Tom Junk, Confessing Movement Board, Tulsa, Okla.
Joe Kilpatrick, Confessing Movement Board, Tucker, Ga.
The Rev. Chong IL Kim, Bible UMC of New York, Dix Hills, N.Y.
Katy Kiser, Good News Board, Carrollton, Texas
The Rev. Thomas Lambrecht, Vice President, Good News, Spring, Texas
The Rev. Charles Kyker, Christ UMC, Confessing Movement Board, Hickory, N.C.
The Rev. James Leggett, Grace Fellowship UMC, Katy, Texas
The Rev. Kenneth Levingston, Jones Memorial UMC, Houston, Texas
The Rev. Joseph MacLaren, University Carillon UMC, Oviedo, Fla.
The Rev. David Mantz, First UMC, Port Jefferson, N.Y.
The Rev. Jim Martin, The River UMC, Richmond, Texas
The Rev. John Ed Mathison, Confessing Movement Board, Montgomery, Ala.
The Rev. Gregory McGarvey, Carmel UMC, Confessing Movement Board, Carmel, Ind.
The Rev. Randell Mickler, Mt. Bethel UMC, Marietta, Ga.
Dan Moore, Confessing Movement Board, Martinsville, Ind.
The Rev. Delroy Murdock, St. Paul's UMC, Brooklyn, N.Y.
Norman Neel, Good News Board, San Augustine, Texas
The Rev. Allen Newton, St. James UMC, Montgomery, Ala.
The Rev. Randy Paige, Christ Church United Methodist, Port Jefferson Station, N.Y.
The Rev. James Presig, Lee's Summit UMC, Lee's Summit, Mo.
The Rev. Glen Raley, First UMC, Marysville, Calif.
The Rev. Robert Renfroe, The Woodlands UMC President of Good News, The Woodlands, Texas
Donna Schlitt, Confessing Movement Board, Houston, Texas
The Rev. Mike Schreiner, Morning Star Church, O'Fallon, Mo.
Donald Shell, Good News Board, Houston, Texas
The Rev. Dan Slagle, FaithBridge Church, Good News Board, Spring, Texas
The Rev. Ralph Sigler, Harvest Church UM, Dothan, Ala.
The Rev. Roger Spahr, Cornerstone Church, Watertown, S.D.
David Stanley, Confessing Movement Board, Muscatine, Iowa
Helen Rhea Stumbo, Good News Board, Fort Valley, Ga.
The Rev. Jeff Switzer, Sandtown UMC, Confessing Movement Board, Sandtown, Miss.
The Rev. Alpher Sylvester, Bethany UMC, Brooklyn, N.Y.
The Rev. Richard Thompson, First UMC, Good News Board, Bakersfield, Calif.
The Rev. Robert Thompson-Gee, Poughkeepsie UMC, Poughkeepsie, N.Y.
The Rev. Doug Thrasher, Hillside UMC, Woodstock, Ga.
The Rev. Robert Tindale, Killearn UMC, Tallahassee, Fla.
The Rev. Kirt Watkins, Sea Cliff UMC, Sea Cliff, N.Y.
The Rev. Stephen Wende, First UMC, Confessing Movement Board, Houston, Texas
The Rev. Ken Werlein, FaithBridge Church, Spring, Texas
The Rev. Alice Wolfe, Christ UMC, Baltimore, Ohio
The Rev. Steve Wood, Mount Pisgah UMC, Confessing Movement Board, Alpharetta, Ga.
Marianne Wright, Good News Board, Valdosta, Ga.
The Rev. Harold Zimmick, Asbury UMC, Madison, Wis.
• General Conference 2012: More attempts to change UM standards on sexual behavior
• If defiance continues, United Methodism may come crashing down
• Podcast: Mark Tooley, author of Taking Back the United Methodist Church
• Outcome of DeLong trial likely to exacerbate disunity of UMC
• Pro-homosexuality foundation pours millions into Catholic and mainline Protestant dissident groups
• Breaking the covenant: Why aren't 'Reconciling' churches being held to account?
• In Mississippi Conference, testimony from lesbian couple stirs controversy
• Billy Abraham on United Methodism: 'There is no common faith among us'
• Bishop accused of urging disobedience | Heather Hahn, United Methodist News Service (Aug. 24, 2012)
• United Methodists uphold policy that calls homosexual acts 'incompatible with Christian teaching' | Daniel Burke, Religion News Service (May 3, 2012)
• Outsider influence over homosexuality at General Conference | Karen Booth, Good News (January/February 2012)
• Anyone who works under the authority or auspices of the Church must be held to the highest standards of behavior, free of misconduct in any form | UMSexualEthics.org
• UM Judicial Council backs clergy dismissal over affair | Linda Bloom, UMNS (April 27, 2010)
• Slavery, homosexuality, and not being of one mind | Riley B. Case, via The Sundry Times (July 1, 2008)
• United Methodists uphold homosexuality stance | Robin Russell, United Methodist News Service (April 30, 2008)
• Methodists strengthen stand against homosexual practice | Christianity Today (May 5, 2004)
Chasing away young people by being faithful to the gospel?
Posted in Book of Discipline, Church Renewal, Discipleship, Doctrine, Evangelism, General Conference, United Methodist Church, tagged UMC, United Methodist Church on July 9, 2012|
The following post is by the Rev. Rob Renfroe, president of Good News, the flagship renewal ministry of The United Methodist Church.
The Rev. Rob Renfroe
He is also the pastor of discipleship at The Woodlands UMC, a 9,300-member congregation in The Woodlands, Texas.
From 2007 to 2009, Rob Renfroe served as president of the board of The Confessing Movement Within the United Methodist Church.
He is a past member of the United Methodist General Board of Church and Society.
A few weeks ago, I spoke to members of the Southwest Texas Conference, encouraging SWTX evangelicals to be faithful to the the Gospel and to continue in the work of renewing their Conference. I mentioned this year's General Conference and the issue of homosexuality only briefly.
Afterward, I received a Facebook message about my talk from the pastor of a "reconciling" congregation in Austin, Texas.
For non-Texans, let me explain that Austin is Texas' most liberal large city. Its adopted motto, seen on bumper stickers everywhere, is "Keep Austin Weird." The University of Texas is one of the most "progressive" universities in the state, if not in the country.
The pastor who contacted me serves a church just off the UT campus. In his note, he reiterated an assertion I had heard many times at the General Conference in Tampa: If we don't change our stance on homosexual practice, "we're going to lose the young people and the church will have no future."
In my response to him, I related a true story:
Ten years ago we had a young man on our staff at The Woodlands UMC. He was one of our youth workers and we all loved him.
But we know he wouldn't be with us long. He had a Baptist background and felt God wanted him to start a new Southern Baptist congregation. He is from a small East Texas town, he is more conservative than any of the pastors on our staff, and he is a proud graduate of Texas A&M University.
A contextual note for non-Texans: A&M is as conservative as UT is liberal. And they are fierce rivals! I continued:
Would you believe that Matt felt called by God to start his new Southern Baptist church in Austin to reach University of Texas students? Makes no sense, right? But he followed what he believed God called him to do.
Now, 10 years later, Matt's church — Austin Stone — has 3,500 persons in attendance each weekend. I did some checking and it turns out that this one conservative church has half as many people worshiping with it every Sunday as all of the UM churches in Austin put together.
If a liberal, progressive Gospel was going to be effective anywhere, you'd think it would be in one of our most liberal cities with one of our most progressive universities. But [liberal Christianity simply is] not reaching great numbers of people, young or old, where you would expect it to thrive.
So, no, I am not afraid that if we preach the truth with love that we will lose the young people or doom the future of the church. I think God honors churches that are faithful to his word and I believe the Gospel still has the power to convert and save the lost, no matter their age.
If God can use a conservative Baptist Aggie to reach liberal UT students, we don't have to worry about the Gospel. It can take care of itself.
Our hope is built on…?
What is the UMC's hope for the future? Our hope is not a progressive gospel that denies the cross or the authority of God's Word. Our hope is not liberal pastors who adopt current cultural values because they don't want to offend the beliefs of 18-year-olds.
Rather, the hope of the United Methodist Church, and of the world, is Jesus Christ — his life, death, and resurrection. What is needed is UM pastors who will be faithful to proclaim the truths of God's Word — to the young, to the old, to all.
• Rob Renfroe of Good News on General Conference 2012
• Podcast: Rob Renfroe on 'The Truth About God'
• Podcast: Rob Renfroe on 'The Deeper Issues of Methodist Renewal'
• Podcast: Dr. James Heidinger on 'United Methodist Renewal'
• Podcast: Charles Keysor – 'How then should UM evangelicals fight?'
• Religion and the bad news bearers ("[A] study by the Barna Research Group [erroneously] claimed that young people under 30 are deserting the church in droves.") | Rodney Stark and Byron Johnson, The Wall Street Journal (Aug. 26, 2011)
• On flocking (An essay refuting the notion that "young people will flock to the churches [if] churches [forsake] the original objects of their existence.") | G.K. Chesterton, All is Grist (1934)
• The deeper issues of United Methodist renewal | Rob Renfroe, Good News (via The Sundry Times)
• 45 years of vision for United Methodist renewal and reform | James V. Heidinger II, Good News (web posted May 2012)
• Compromising positions | Rob Renfroe, Good News (May-June 2011)
• What do United Methodists expect from their bishops? | Rob Renfroe, Good News (Feb. 17, 2011)
• Should the UMC change its ordination standards and allow sexually active homosexuals to serve as clergy? | Rob Renfroe, Good News (Feb. 17, 2011)
• In pursuit of truth | Rob Renfroe, Good News (January/February 2011)
• Believe, experience, and increase | Rob Renfroe, Good News (June/July 2010)
• Grace and truth (video) | Rob Renfroe, Asbury Seminary Chapel (April 13, 2010)
• Speaking the truth in love | Rob Renfroe, Good News (September/October 2009)
• For the cause of Christ (PDF) | Rob Renfroe, Good News (May/June 2009)
• Defining the issues: A Methodist witness | Albert Mohler (Nov. 1, 2006)
• Turning Around the Mainline: How Renewal Movements Are Changing the Church (ordering info) | Thomas C. Oden, Baker Books (2006)
Prayer for UM General Conference from prominent Southern Baptist provokes sharp responses
Posted in Book of Discipline, Doctrine, Ethics, General Conference, Holiness, Media, Prayer, Social Issues, United Methodist Church, tagged UMC, United Methodist Church on April 30, 2012|
A Monday afternoon tweet by Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, received sharply negative responses from several United Methodist tweeters.
Dr. Albert Mohler
At 4:19 p.m. Eastern Time, Mohler tweeted: "Join me in praying that the General Conference of the United Methodist Church will hold firm for biblical standards of sexuality."
Mohler apparently was referring to the sexual standards detailed in the United Methodist Book of Discipline in paragraphs 161F and 304.3. Petitions that would alter those paragraphs will be debated and voted on later this week.
The Discipline language upholds human sexuality as "God's good gift" but teaches that not all forms of sexual expression are within the boundaries of holy and appropriate Christian conduct.
"Although all persons are sexual beings whether or not they are married, sexual relations are affirmed only within the covenant of monogamous, heterosexual marriage," paragraph 161F states.
Paragraph 304.3 requires clergy members of the UMC "to maintain the highest standards of holy living in the world," further noting that "self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be accepted as [clergy] candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church."
A few UM tweeters thanked Mohler for his comment about praying for the upcoming vote on sexual standards, but most responses directed to him (via the @albertmohler designation) were decidedly negative and in some cases even derisive:
Although a Southern Baptist, Albert Mohler served two Methodist churches while pursuing his seminary education. He has been president of Southern Seminary in Louisville, Ky., since 1993.
Mohler is the author of Culture Shift: Engaging Current Issues with Timeless Truth (Multnomah, 2008), Desire & Deceit: The Real Cost of the New Sexual Tolerance (Multnomah, 2008), and He Is Not Silent: Preaching in a Postmodern World (Moody, 2008).
• Astonishing preaching
• A conversation with Mark Tooley on General Conference 2012
A conversation with Mark Tooley on General Conference 2012
Posted in Book of Discipline, Christian/Methodist History, Church Renewal, General Conference, Social Issues, United Methodist Church, tagged Audio, UMC, United Methodist Church on April 24, 2012|
Mark Tooley, author of Taking Back the United Methodist Church (Bristol House, 2010) discussed the UMC's 2012 General Conference in an interview Tuesday on Issues Etc., a daily program produced by Lutheran Public Radio.
You can listen to the 10-minute conversation below. (If the audio player doesn't work, use this mp3 file.)
https://methodistthinker.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/issues-etc-tooley-gc-2012-0424.mp3
Mark Tooley is the president of the president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, founded in 1981 by United Methodists Ed Robb and David Jessup.
IRD describes itself as "an ecumenical alliance of U.S. Christians working to reform their churches' social witness, in accord with biblical and historic Christian teachings, thereby contributing to the renewal of democratic society at home and abroad."
Tooley was named president of the organization in 2009.
Mark Tooley's writings have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, Frontpage, The American Spectator, The Weekly Standard, Touchstone, and The Washington Times.
His second book, Methodism and Politics in the Twentieth Century (Bristol House) was released earlier this year.
• Podcast: Mark Tooley, author of 'Taking Back the United Methodist Church'
• Mark Tooley profiled in WORLD magazine
• Same-Sex Marriage for United Methodists? | Mark Tooley, The American Spectator (June 27, 2011)
• Mark Tooley discusses the Wisconsin Conference church trial of Amy DeLong | Issues Etc., Lutheran Public Radio (June 24, 2011)
https://methodistthinker.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/mtooley-issuesetc2011-0623.mp3
• Mere-O Interview: Mark Tooley | Mere Orthodoxy (March 14, 2011)
• United Methodist 'Call to Action' finds 15% of UM churches highly 'vital' | Mark Tooley, UMAction—IRD (July 17, 2010)
• Wesleyan surge: A review of Taking Back the United Methodist Church | William Murchison, Touchstone (May/June, 2010)
• Mark Tooley Remarks to the IRD Board (March 14, 2010)
• From CIA to IRD: Advocate Mark Tooley knows that 'God often has surprises for us' | WORLD (Oct. 10, 2009)
• A conversation with Mark Tooley, president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy | The King's College (New York City) Distinguished Visitor Series (Sept. 9, 2009)
http://www.tkc.edu/media/audio/mp3s/tooleypodcast.mp3
• Review: Taking Back The United Methodist Church (2008 ed.) | Ray Nothstine, Acton Institute Power Blog (April 10, 2008)
• 40 years of vision for United Methodist Renewal (PDF) | James V. Heidinger II, Good News (November/December 2007)
This blog was active from 2008-2013. It is no longer updated.
ThinkerSeek
We have sinned and done wrong. All this disaster has come upon us, yet we have not given attention to your truth.
We do not make requests of you because we are righteous, but because of your great mercy. O LORD, forgive!
(Adapted from Daniel 9)
Terry Teykl's Acts 29 Prayer Guide (PDF)
Book of Discipline
Christian/Methodist History
Church Development
Judicial Council
Lay Speaking Ministries
MThinker General Annoucements
North Georgia Conference
UM Higher Education
Archives - general conference
1996 – Denver
2000 – Cleveland
2004 – Pittsburgh
2008 – Fort Worth
2012 – Tampa
Header image of "Le Penseur" ("The Thinker") is via flickr — used with permission of innoxiuss. Image adapted for this site by Gideon.