Out the Door

Maxie Dunnam's Response to Amendments Defeat

Maxie Dunnam had made a passionate appeal for the defeat of most of the proposed contitutional admendments on YouTube.  Now that the majority of Annual Conferences have had the opportunity to vote of these, it has become apparent that all of the most controversial ones are headed toward defeat.  Dunnam has recently released a statement about the apparent disconnect between those who are in leadership positions in the church and the women and men who live out their faith through the UMC.

Below is a "Reader's Digest" version of his statement.  To read the entire statement click here (PDF File)

In l859, John Henry Newman wrote an article entitled "On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine."  It was printed in a Roman Catholic periodical, The Rambler, of which Newman was the editor.  Newman not only affirmed the critical role of laity in the church, he insisted that the consensus of the faithful may preserve important doctrines even when the bishops fail.  Newman made the case that there is lodged in the Church; the Body of Christ which is comprised primarily of laity, a depository of profound practical theological wisdom.

If the Roman Catholics can positively entertain that notion, how much more should we be able to do so as Protestants who champion the priesthood of all believers and the ministry of the whole people of God?

I believe our recent dealing with the Constitutional Amendments is related in part to this issue.  Enough of the votes on these amendments have been reported by the annual conferences to make it possible to reasonably know the results. The sense of the faithful has been registered, not alone in terms of laity, but faithful lay and clergy across the connection.

Let me quickly register the fact that the doctrine of the church is not to be established by popular vote.  That's the reason our General Conference, though it is the final authority for the church's life and ministry, cannot change our Articles of Religion and Confession of Faith.  However, how our doctrines are lived out in the concrete realties of life and ministry are determined in large part by the sense of the faithful.

How could the General Conference approve what the church has now overwhelmingly refused to ratify?  Could it be that we simply did not take enough time for study, prayer, and holy conferencing to discern the sense of the faithful?  Could it be that ideological interest groups and small geographic areas of the church dominate the organizations and structures of influence?  Or, could it be that the way the issues were brought to General Conference was prejudiced? 

I'm thinking particularly of the amendments related to worldwide nature of the church. 

These amendments came out of a non-representative task force and were brought to the General Conference endorsed by the Council of Bishops and approved by the Connectional Table.  Somewhere there is a disconnect...either in communication or in leadership.  As I understand it, the vote of the Connectional Table was 75% in favor of the worldwide nature amendments.  Early reports indicate that the vote of the church may be just the opposite...60 to 75% in opposition.  Where is the disconnect here?  How representative of the church is this body, and to whom do they pay most attention?

Another amendment of particular interest is the amendment that would change paragraph IV in the constitution.  This amendment was "pitched" as an effort to open the doors of the church to everyone.  The church is already open to everyone, but there are requirements for membership.  It was clear from the beginning, though some proponents tried to disguise it, that this was another effort on the part of a passionate minority to undermine the church's position on the practice of homosexuality.   At the last report, the amendment had not received 50% of the vote, when 66.7% is needed.

How long will bishops, pastors, seminaries, and general boards continue to force an issue which diverts focus, resources and energy from mission and ministry?  Does the sense of the faithful not matter?  Isn't there a measure of arrogance in a small part of the body continuing to passionately push their convictions which they know threaten the vitality and unity of the church?

I believe the vote on the amendments is a positive vote for the church, reflecting the "sense of the faithful."  If we are going to fulfill our mission "to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world," then we must respect the integrity of the faithful in order to engage them in our kingdom ministry.
 
 

Healthcare Reform will fund abortions

There can be little doubt that in the Democratic's version of healthcare reform that abortions will be fully funded through the governmental plan. Millions of pro-life Americans will be forced by their government to pay for the killing of children.

While the word "abortion" appears nowhere within the bill which is now before Congress, the language of the legislation speaks of "all necessary medical procedures." For pro-abortion advoates who dominate the ruling Democratic Party, abortion is a necessary medical procedure.

A coalition of pro-life groups have banded together to fight this expansion of abortion. They are running an ad informing the public of the implication of the healthcare reform bill. Below are a CBN report about the commerical and the commerical itself.  Make sure to check out the Stop The Abortion Mandate website.

Healthcare Reform Questions

There's been so much said and written about the healthcare reform and the governmental takeover on 1/6th of the US economy that I have been hesitant to add my voice.  However, as I have listen to the debate, I have some questions I would like answered.

1.  Whose responsibility is it to provide for the healthcare of the citizens of the United States?

I find nowhere in the Bible where the government is given the responsibility to provide healthcare for anyone.  To use the Old Testament prophets words to Israel justify governmental intervention distorts them.  The USA cannot be equated to ancient Israel.  In the same manner, Jesus' words which command us to care for the sick are not addressed to a governmental body, but rather to His body, the Church.  It's time for the Church to be the Church and to quit relying on the government to do the work to which the Church is called. 

There are approximately 225 million Americans who claim to be Christian, median person income is about $32,000.  Thus if every Christian gave a tithe of their income the amount with which the Church could do ministry would be $720 billion.  If only a quarter of that amount was used to provide for the healthcare of the 46 million Americans who don't have insurance, that means each uninsured person would receive about $3,900.  The average per person cost for health insurance is $3,250.  Problem solved!  And it didn't require governmental intervention, rather it required that those who call themselves by the name of Jesus Christ are faithful to the commands of scripture.

2.  If the governmental plan is so good, why has Congress exempted themselves from it?

The fact that the healthcare reform bill impacts the lives of every American except those in Congress is elitist.  Obviously, those in Congress who support this bill really don't think it is really going to help the people who are forced into the program.  Why else would they exempt themselves?

3.  To think that the governmental healthcare plan can be put into place without increasing the national debt is naive.  How much debt are we going to place on the backs of our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren before it will be more than they can possibly carry?

Presently, the government is spending 185% of its income.  In other words, in order to balance the budget taxes would need to be about doubled or spending cut in half.  Since the healthcare plan increases spending by upward of a trillion dollars, the only option is to more than double people's tax burden or else lay it on the backs of future generations.  Since future generations don't vote, it's not hard to figure out what the politicians will do.  When is enough, enough?

I've been curious

This Sunday during worship I'm giving the members of my congregation the opportunity to ask a question which they have pondering.  I'm going to see what happens when people can text in questions. 

I have some questions that I’d like answered.  Some of these questions are deep, questions that people have been asking through the ages.  Others are just things that I can’t figure out.  They are in no particular order.  I’d love to hear how you’d respond to any of these, leave a comment or email me at [email protected].

• Why do we say mean things to those we love most that we’d never consider saying to a stranger?
• Why do young people full of potential suffer and die, while aged folks who have lived their lives and are ready for heaven linger?
• Why are Americans who have so much sadder than people who live in impoverished countries?
• Is there life on other planets?
• Why did God create the universe that is mostly invisible to the human eye?
• How do people fall in love?
• Why does the largest animal, the blue whale feed on one of the smallest, krill?
• Why does doing the right thing often seem hard, while doing the wrong thing comes so easily?
• Why is it that we know a lot of people, but have so few good friends?
• Why can I birdie one hole and get a triple bogey on the next?
• Why is reading a novel easy while reading the Bible takes real effort?
• Where are all the technological changes leading us?
• Why are TV’s getting larger and smaller at the same time?
• How can some people suffer much and remain happy and positive and others, including me, complain at the slightest inconvenience?
• How can Congress that oversees the Post Office which loses billions of dollars a year doing the simple task of delivering a letter possibly oversee something as complex as the health care system without major cost overruns?