Out the Door

Is there really a reason for everything?

Last Wednesday night two teenage boys drowned in the Pella pool at a Fellowship of Christian Athletes event. To add to the tragedy, they were Haitian refugees who had come to the States with their mother following the earthquake.  Their father stayed behind in Haiti. 

Someone said to me as we were talking about it, "There's a reason for everything."  Whenever I hear that, and I hear it a lot, it's like waving a red flag in from of a bull.  I want to jump up and down and scream, "No, no, there doesn't have to be a reason!"  (I controlled myself however.)  Surely, in this case there are clear reasons it happened.  The mother signed a waiver noting they couldn't swim.  The boys told the counselors at the pool they could.  The counselors had forgotten to bring the waivers to the pool.  There were 175 teenage boys in the pool splashing around the pool at once.  The underwater light was burned out in the area of the pool where the boys drowned.  There were all kinds of reasons this happened, but that doesn't mean it happened for a reason.

It wasn't "their time," nor was it "God's plan for their life."  I refuse to believe that among all the death and destruction which resulted from the Haitian earthquake that these two boys were delivered from that just so that they could end up drowning in a pool in Pella, IA.  What kind of God would do that?  Would a loving God rescue this mother and her sons when so many around them perished, only to bring them to the U.S. to die here a few months later?  What a cruel joke that would be!  It would be like a school yard bully "accidentally" tripping the class nerd, helping him up, then tripping him again as he walks away.

I believe in a God who watched in horror as Haitian cities collapsed on His children.  I believe in a God who was desperately trying to get the attention of someone pool side as these boys floundered, but for whatever reason no one did pay attention.  I believe in a God who weeps with a heartbroken mother.  And I believe in a God who is powerful enough and loving enough to take tragedies like these and reshaped their brokenness into something good and beautiful.  

An Open Letter to the Editor of the "Interpreter" magazine

Dear Editor,

Part of me would like to think that the wording Rev. J. Richard Peck used in his article about the General Conference vote in the July/August issue of the Interpreter was an mistake and not a premeditated bold-faced lie as was printed.　 Rev. Peck wrote, "Conference members did not approve an amendment to say that all people are welcome to attend United Methodist churches and receive the sacraments."　 Either Rev. Peck and the Interpreter staff failed to read the amendment he references, or there was a deliberate attempt to spin the results of the vote to support a particular agenda.  As unfortunate as it is, knowing the left-leaning nature of the UM Communications staff, I am inclined to believe the latter.  I hope you will prove me wrong by printing a correction in the next issue.

The truth is that nowhere within the amendment nor anywhere else within the Book of Discipline is it stated that some people are not welcome to attend United Methodist churches nor that they cannot receive the sacraments.  The amendment which failed by a significant margin would have removed all requirements for membership.  In other words, had the amendment passed anyone would have been eligible to be a member of the UMC if they were willing to verbally affirm the membership vows regardless their beliefs or lifestyle.  

It has been and remains the policy of the United Methodist church to welcome all to worship and to offer to all the opportunity to experience the transforming power of Jesus Christ. 

Confusion reigns

Two articles in this week's addition of UM Reporter demonstrate the confusion that racks the UMC.  One was an interview with Leonard Sweet about his new book, Jesus Manifesto.  The other about the University Senate reinstating Claremont Seminary to full status as a United Methodist accredited school for educating UM pastors.

The title of the articles highlights the confusion I'm referring to.  The former is titled, Q&A: Restoring the supremacy of Jesus, while the latter is Claremont’s religious diversity: Church affirms multi-faith project. 

Sweet along with his co-author Frank Viola subtitle their book, "It's time to restore the supremacy of Jesus Christ."  Claremont on the other hand, thinks that Jesus Christ is probably good thing for Christians to believe in, but is equal not supreme to the beliefs of Jews and Muslims.  Sadly, the University Senate thinks that's ok and are giving the school nearly a million dollars in order to teach it to UM pastors.

I read about this kind of confusion and the rejection of the supremacy of Jesus by the UM hierarchy and I wonder why it is that these same people can't understand why people in local churches don't want to see their contributions used to pay apportionments.  It's pretty clear to me.

If we want our churches to grow and to support the work of our denomination, then we had better figure out what our message is.  It it about Jesus or is it about gathering everyone together and singing "Kum ba yah" where each person gets to decide which lord they want to come by.