Out the Door

Another Reason Why It's a Good Thing that the World Wide Church Amendments Are Going Down in Flames

As Annual Conferences continue to meet, it's becoming more and more apparent that United Methodists around the world have seen the folly of the World Wide Church Amendments approved by the 2008 General Conference.  Of the 27 AC's which have reported their voting, 24 have rejected the Amendments.  By voting no, UM's are insuring that the UMC doesn't end up like the Anglican Communion in America which is turning in on itself.

The Anglican Church of North America will be formed next week.  This mass exodus of more than 10% of all Episcopalian attendees in the US & Canada comes as a result of the increasing liberal actions of the Episcopalian leaders.  (Washington Times article)

I firmly believe if the World Wide Church Amendments would have somehow passed, that the UMC would be following suit in a few short years.  The Amendments would have established the US as a "regional" body.  This would have made it much easier for the liberal elements of the UMC in the US to push through their agendas.  And like the Episcopalians, conservative American United Methodists would feel a closer ties to their African sisters and brothers and would move to align with them, perhaps going as far as forming a new Methodist denomination in America.

Can you imagine what it would mean if suddenly 10% of all American UM's left the denomination?  Since conservative Christians are generally more generous than those who are left-leaning.  The financial earthquake would leave the GC and AC's reeling.

But thanks be to God, it appears as if the door is quickly closing on those possibilities.  Any AC which might yet pass the Amendments is too small to have a major impact on the outcome.  And I think that the trend of 8 to 1 against will for the most part continue. 

Ordering Pizza in 2010

  This has probably been around for a while, but I've only recently seen it.  I don't know if I should laugh, run for cover or just go ahead and order a pizza.

Ordering Pizza in 2010

Does Jesus accept everyone?

Several times during the debate over Amendment 1, I heard proponents say in one form or another, "Jesus accepted all persons, so we should too."  When I heard them say that, I wondered if they read the same scriptures I do.  Jesus wasn't a nicety-nice fellow who "just loved everybody," in a Mr. Rogers or Barney the Dinosaur sort of way.  Read the first 36 verses of Matthew 23, where Jesus condemns the Pharisees.  How anyone could read those words and then turn around and say, "Jesus accepts everyone," is beyond me.  That's just one such example.  The parable of the sheep and the goats is another.  When the king says to the goats (the ones on his left), "Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels," (Matthew 25:41) it doesn't sound like words of acceptance to me.

I believe that God's grace through Jesus Christ is available to all.  However, I don't believe that's the same thing as "Jesus accepts all persons."  God's grace is not as Calvin taught, irresistable.   It is one thing for Christ to offer love, forgiveness, and acceptance.  It's quite another for human beings to receive these offered gifts.

When an individual receives the gift of grace it changes how that person lives.  There is evidence of that change.  This message was proclaimed by John the Baptist.  "Produce fruit in keeping with repentance."  (Matthew 3:8)  Jesus taught that those who do not produce this fruit will not find acceptance, see John 15.

Those who follow Jesus Christ have the joy of proclaiming that all may receive God's grace.  With that also comes the responsibility to proclaim that those who desire God's grace must claim it for themselves and show in their actions that they have.

Iowa Annual Conference Constitutional Votes

After nearly hour and a half of debate and questions on Saturday morning, Amendment 1 was soundly defeated.  This followed Friday's vote that proclaimed we desire to be a global church and not a bunch of regional churhes by rejecting the amendments related to the change in our structure.  These votes give me more hope for the future of the United Methodist Church than I have had for many months.  If a liberal Conference like Iowa can see the foolishness of these amendments then there's a good chance others will too.

Since only 2 hours was allotted in the working agenda for the debate and vote on the amendments, a number of them were postpone well beyond their scheduled time.  Because of this I was not present for a few of the votes and therefore do not have the results as of yet.  When I get them I will update the results page.

There was a motion from the floor prior to voting on the United Methodist constitutional amendments which would have required the office of communication to publicize the results of the votes on the Conference website.  That motion was defeated.  However, that does not exclude me from sharing with you the unofficial results. 

Disclaimer:  While I tried to carefully record all the votes, these remain unofficial and no figures or other statements herewithin are endorsed by the Iowa Annual Conference.

Vote Results (PDF)

UPDATE:  For reason I cannot explain, the official results of the votes have been posted to the Conference website.  Here's a link to them.  It's a PDF file.  Results are found about 3/4 the way down on page 2.

My Speech Against Amendment One

I’ve been thinking about the speech I hope to have the opportunity to give at Annual Conference in opposition to Amendment One.  Here it is:

We as United Methodist desire our congregations to be a place of openness and inclusivity.  However, this amendment carries with it some real dangers to the life of the church.

Imagine this scene:  A man comes into worship one day and sits down in the back.  He continues to come and gets involved in an adult Sunday school class.  Before long you discover that the reason that he has been attending your church is because he’s been to about every other church in town and has never gotten along anywhere.  It also becomes apparent that he is outspoken in his bigotry.  He thinks all homosexuals, Jews, and Muslims are going to straight hell and he’s not afraid to say so.

One day he comes to the pastor and says he wants to join the church.  The pastor knowing a little about his past experiences in other churches and his bigoted beliefs questions him, asking if he understands that United Methodists believe that Christ has open the church to people of all ages, nations, and races.  He replies that he has read the membership vows in the hymnal and believes that he can reply in the affirmative to all the questions.

It is very obvious to the pastor that this man doesn’t really understand our vows.  She also knows that in all likelihood he will eventually cause problems for the congregation.  But what is she to do.  He says he wants to join the church and is willing to affirm our vows.  Because of the change brought about by this amendment, she has no grounds on which to postpone or deny him this privilege. 

One of the definitions of a pastor is shepherd.  A good shepherd protects the flock for predators.  I know from experience, and I’ll wager that most of you also know, that there are predators out there who are capable of doing great harm to the church.  This amendment completely strips all pastors of the God-given responsibility to watch over His flock.  We must not allow that to happen, please vote no.

The Ongoing Attack Against Orthodox Christians in America

I have been accused in the past by some of my readers of overstating my case.  And I will admit I have pushed the envelop at times.  But if I have it is only because I want people to wake up to what's happening around them. 

I've been reading through the book of Jeremiah.  Yesterday I read these words:

They (the prophets & priest) have treated the wound of my people carelessly, saying "Peace, peace," when there is no peace.  Jeremiah 6:14

Orthodox Christians are under attack in this country, while many are crying, "Peace, peace," as if everything is okay.  Once the religious liberty of orthodox Christians is stripped away, can the onslaught against all people of faith, regardless of their faith, be far behind?

No doubt some people will think that I'm being fanatical in my warnings, however look at what is already taking place.  These aren't hypothetical situations, these are real court cases where the religious liberty of individuals and groups have been denied.  The following stories have been produced by the National Public Radio, which certainly isn't a bastion of conservative thinking.

Two women decided to hold their civil union ceremony at a New Jersey pavilion owned by the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association. This Methodist group told the women they could not “marry” in any building used for religious purposes. The Rev. Scott Hoffman said a theological principle—that marriage can only exist between one man and one woman—was at stake.  The women filed a discrimination complaint with the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights. The Methodists said the First Amendment protected their right to practice their faith without being punished by the government. But punish the Methodists is exactly what New Jersey did. It revoked their tax exemption—a move that cost them $20,000.

Then there’s the case of the Christian physicians who refused to provide in vitro fertilization treatment to a woman in a lesbian relationship. The doctors referred her to their partners, who were willing to provide the treatment. But that wasn’t good enough. The woman sued. The California Supreme Court agreed with the woman, saying that the doctors’ religious beliefs didn’t give them the right to refuse the controversial treatment.

In Massachusetts, Catholic Charities was told they had to accept homosexual couples in their adoption service, or get out of the adoption business. They chose correctly and got out of the business.

In Mississippi, a mental health counselor was sued for refusing to provide therapy to a woman looking to improve her lesbian relationship. The counselor’s employers fired her—a move that was backed up by the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In New York, the Albert Einstein College of Medicine at Yeshiva University refused to allow same-sex couples to live in married student housing, in keeping with the school’s orthodox Jewish teachings. But in 2001, the New York State Supreme Court forced them to do so anyway—even though New York has no same-sex “marriage” law.

In Albuquerque, a same-sex couple asked a Christian wedding photographer to film their commitment ceremony—and sued the photographer when she declined.

An online adoption service was forced to stop doing business in California when a same-sex couple sued the service for refusing, on religious grounds, to assist them. 

All the above examples involve the loss of religious freedom because the individuals or groups held an orthodox Biblical worldview.  So you see why I'm concerned when people bury their heads in the sand about the attack on the free practice of religion and ignore the warnings that are proclaimed.  The priests and prophets of Jeremiah's day didn't listen and the Israelites paid a terrible price. 

I fear we are just seeing the tip of the iceberg of persecution which will come upon people of faith in our nation.  The only hope I see is if people of faith, Jews, Muslims, orthodox and progressive Christians come together and say, "Individuals must have the freedom to practice their religion even if we don't agree with their beliefs.  For when one person or group is denied the right to practice their faith as they see fit, then we all stand the chance of  losing our right to practice our religion."

NT: breakpoint.org

Christian America? Not Happening

Andrew Thompson has a great response to the recent Newsweek article about the demise of Christianity in America.  It is a must read.

While the Newsweek article riled a lot of conservative Christians.  Thompson's article should raise that hackles on a lot of liberal Christians.  Here's what he says that I think is at the heart of his commentary.

For his part, (John) Yoder is deeply skeptical of the project of Christianizing America. He argues in The Original Revolution that the attempt to turn the larger society Christian by ‘Christianizing’ laws and institutions is actually a sign of unfaithfulness. Such an attempt indicates a belief that “what God is really doing He is doing through the framework of society as a whole and not in the Christian community.” 

Instead, Yoder wants to Christianize the church by emphasizing that following Jesus and following the nation (any nation) are two different things. It’s a point that needs making in a culture where people have long assumed that the church and the society are pretty much synonymous. 

What comes naturally to a Mennonite is not such a popular position to take in the mainline church, of course. But Yoder’s right. After all, where in the New Testament does it say that the body of Christ can ever be society writ large? 

Christians can and should fight to preserve both law and social custom that we understand to fit with a Christian worldview. But we also shouldn’t think the goal of Christian discipleship is to baptize the culture. 

Jesus is not using America to save the world. He’s using the church, which is his true body. 

Some would counter that such a view is narrowly sectarian, but that is only because they don’t have much faith in the church as God’s true vehicle for salvation. (emphasis mine)

Too many Christians are looking to the government to solve the problems of poverty, healthcare, and education, to name a few.  The government has usurped the Church's rightful place in dealing with these issues.  This is true in part because it has been easier for the Church to let the government deal with these difficult issues.  The Church in America has been way to willing to hand over the reins of the works of righteousness and justice to the government.  This is a relatively new development.  Still one can see the remnants of the Church's active role in dealing with society's woes.  Many of the greatest universities in America were founded by Christians in order to develop new generations of Christian leaders.  Many of the greatest hospitals and nursing care facilities were founded by Christians who felt the need to provide medical care to those in need.  Many of the greatest charitible organizations came into being because Christians heard God's call to care for the orphan, the widow and the poor.  Sadly, Americans, including many Christian Americans now look more to the government to provide these services rather than the Church. 

I find no where among Jesus' teaching where the government is mandated to care for the poor, the sick, and those who are oppressed.  I find many places where the Church is commanded to do these things.

Thompson rightly says in closing:

Jesus did not reconcile the world to himself by conquering Rome. The call he gave was not to powerful aristocrats to build a new Roman Senate. It was instead a call to humble fishermen, to build a church. 

For us who want to obey him by following his example in mission and ministry, empty claims about a ‘Christian America’ are irrelevant.  Supremely relevant, though, is our discipleship. And that discipleship will surely be more faithful as we worry less about the Christian identity of America and more about the Christian fidelity of the church.

Amen to that!

House Democrats approve special protection for child molesters

I realize that this headline sounds too outlandish to be true.  Sadly, it is not.  The U.S. House of Representatives voted 249 to 175 mostly along party lines to add the words "sexual orientation" to a list of extra-protected groups under federal hate crime laws.  Pedophilia (child molestation) is just one of the paraphilias the American Psychiatric Association defines as a "sexual orientation."  The American Family Association delineates 30 of the 547 paraphilias or "sexual orientations"as defined by the APA.  Paraphilias," Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (Washington: American Psychiatric Association, 2000), pp. 566-582

During debate in the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa (YouTube), offered this very simple amendment: "The term sexual orientation as used in this act or any amendments to this act does not include pedophilia."

It was rejected.

Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert's response (YouTube) in committee clarified what that means:

If a mother hears that their child has been raped and she slaps the assailant with her purse, she is now gone after as a hate criminal because this is a protected class. There are other protected classes in here. I mean simple exhibitionism. I have female friends who have told me over the years that some guy flashed them, and their immediate reaction was to hit them with their purse. Well now, he's committed a misdemeanor, [and] she has committed a federal hate crime because the exhibitionism is protected under sexual orientation.

And having reviewed cases as an appellate judge, I know that when the legislature has the chance to include a definition and refuses, then what we look at is the plain meaning of those words. The plain meaning of sexual orientation is anything to which someone is orientated. That could include exhibitionism, it could include necrophilia (sexual arousal/activity with a corpse). … It could include urophilia (sexual arousal associated with urine), voyeurism. You see someone spying on you changing clothes and you hit them – they've committed a misdemeanor; you've committed a federal felony under this bill. It is so wrong.

When the bill came before the House, again Rep. King (YouTube)tried to make is colleagues understand exactly what they were enacting.  He pointed out that they were about to give extra-protected status to 547 different orientations.

Then, shockingly, Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., agreed and admitted that this bill will protect all 547 forms of sexual deviancy or "Paraphilias" listed by the APA.  Here's what Hastings said on the House floor (YouTube):

This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these 'Philias' and fetishes and 'isms' that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule.

Apparently, Rep. Hastings and the vast majority of his fellow Democrats, as well as a handful of Republicans have absolutely no problem with sexual deviants, including child molesters and exhibitionists, getting an elevated level of protection.  I wonder if they would have voted the same way if one of their children or their spouse had fallen victim to one of these deviants?  I doubt it.  So why don't they offer the same protection to the rest of us.

Three Cheers for the Judicial Council

The Judicial Council during its spring meeting upheld the long standing position of the United Methodist Church that marriage is defined as the union between a man and woman.  Because of this UM pastors are forbidden to perform same sex unions. 

This decision involves the case of the California-Nevada Annual Conference.  The council affirmed Bishop Beverly J. Shamana’s decision voiding a resolution passed by the regional group backing retired pastors who perform same-gender marriages.

“An annual conference may not legally negate, ignore or violate provisions of the (Book of) Discipline with which they disagree, even when the disagreements are based on conscientious objections to the provisions,” the council ruled.**

In a separate decision, the council reversed California-Pacific Conference Bishop Mary Ann Swenson’s ruling supporting a conference resolution recognizing “the pastoral need and prophetic authority of our clergy and congregations to offer the ministry of marriage ceremonies for same-gender couples.”**

Council members Jon Gray and the Rev. Kathy Austin Mahle rightly noted, “church law can only be made by the General Conference and cannot be achieved through piecemeal resolutions adopted in an annual conference session.”**

While the case should have been cut and dry, the UMC's stance on homosexuality has remained unchanged for 30 years, nation-wide judicial activism left me unsure as to how the Council would rule.  That concern was even greater given the fact that the Council members who were elected at the 2008 General Conference appeared to be left-leaning in their beliefs.  They are to be commended that they put their person opinions aside and ruled based on the statements of the Discipline.  Unfortunately that was universally true.   Council member Belton Joyner Jr. filed a dissenting opinion.  Obviously, this was a personal opinion and had no basis in church law. 

This is an issue which will not go away.  With the Iowa Supreme Court forcing their beliefs upon the people of Iowa by legalizing homosexual marriage, I am convinced that there will be some liberal members of the Iowa Conference who will seek to push the issue come June.  Hopefully, the Judicial Council's ruling will take some wind out of their sails and we'll be able to move beyond this divisive issue.  But I wouldn't count on it. 

**Quotes from UM Reporter article

When to draw a line in the sand

Our family traveled to Texas a number of years ago to see my sister who was living there at the time.  While we were there, we spent a couple of days in San Antonio.  We took a boat ride along the famous river walk, got soaked by the acrobatic stunts of Shamu at Sea World, and of course toured the Alamo.

In front of the Alamo embedded in the stone is a bronze line.  It represents the line in the sand which Col. William Travis drew when he challenged the defenders to stand and fight.

There are times in life when we need to draw a line in sand.  When we say, “This is as far as I will go and no further.”  In this age of relativism there is much which pushes us to compromise our morals and values.   If we’re going to keep from crossing the line, then we have to have a firm grasp of what our morals and values are.  The time to draw the line in the sand isn’t when the wall is breached and attackers are upon you.

The trick is as a wise old preacher once told me deciding if this mountain is worth dying for.  The patriots at the Alamo decided that liberty was worth dying for.  And they sacrificed their lives defending it. 

I’ve learned over the years that there are only a few mountains which are worth dying for, that it is a rare occasion when a line need be drawn in the sand.  Much of what I considered important as I looked at it in a new light, turned out to be more of a personal preference rather than a true deeply held value.

For instance, Julie and I never got worked up by the hair style choices that our boys made while they were growing up.  Whether it was spiked or shaved off or somewhere in between, several of which I thought were pretty strange looking, it was only hair.  We were willing to allow them the freedom to decide for themselves on such things, so that when we told them no to drugs, to drinking and driving, and the like they would understand that there was no room for compromise.

Each of us is confronted regularly with situations which challenges our likes and our values.  Deciding a head of time what things truly are our values can save a lot of unnecessary conflict, while at the same time providing us with a line which we will not cross.