Fellow United Methodist and blogging friend Joshua Claybourn of In the Agora responded to a comment in this post by lifting up a counter-revolution in the UMC to keep it from being taken over by what he labels the “progressive left.” Never mind for a moment our disagreement about my claim that employment of the term “progressive left” is a lazy way to address a complex issue with respect to the numerical decline of the UMC (membership has fallen dramatically; attendance has been more stable.). Also disregard the fact that conservatives have won many battles at the legislative and judicial levels and that 24% of UMC seminary students attend the non-United Methodist, Wesleyan tradition seminary Asbury.
What really perplexes me is my inability to spur Josh to answer my claim that two goals he says he supports are in fact incompatible. Josh says he wants a diverse church and seems to support the “open doors, open minds, open hearts” theme. Yet, he places himself strongly on the side of the counter-revolutionaries, which are led by groups such as the Institute on Reilgion and Democracy, the Confessing Movement and Good News Magazine. Out of these groups have come strong movements to purge the UMC of liberal clergy by the establishment of one or more loyalty oaths, narrowed doctrinal standards, altered statements of faith (such as going from “Jesus Christ as Savior of the World and the Lord of All Creation” to requiring clergy to sign belief statements that there is no salvation apart from confessing Christ.) Further, many of these movements have advocated suing church officials for property on the basis that they aren’t Bible believing and thus aren’t Christians, which frees those suing from the restriction of Christian taking on Christian in court. A good part of the counter-revolutionary movement has given advice to dissatisfied United Methodists as to how they may withdraw from the church and take church property with them. Still another cause advanced by the counter-revolutionaries is the idea of amiacable separation (how can it be amiacable when most don’t want to separate?).
In the comments, Josh objects to all manner of my opinions, but doesn’t address the central question of the compatibility of supporting both a diverse church and the counter-revolutionaries (the latter particularly concerning their methods). I even pointed out by e-mail to Josh that if the counter-revolutionaries succeed, I would be removed from the ministry. Not even that rather bold development drew any response from him. So, I will give readers here the opportunity to address how within the United Methodist Church denominational diversity and the counter-revolutionary movement can each succeed.
{ 25 comments… read them below or add one }
dh 08.17.07 at 3:32 pm
Joel, it is interesting how you mention “suing”, “revolutionary” and “counter-revolutionary”. Let me give you a history before I ask you a question. My church, which is Anglican, was once an Episcopal church. Our church has had a ministry to help homosexuals but doesn’t advocate homosexual pastors. When the Epsicopal church mandated in their bylaws that homosexuals could lead a church our pastor worked to see agreement but the Episcopal leadership didn’t see our pastors way. When the leadership of the Episcopal church heard from our pastor in a tactful way that our church could just not be part of the Episcopal church and that it would prefer to part of the Anglican church under a particular diocese my pastor was told that the church must either give up the building or pay $1.5 million dollars or face being sued.
You mention “counter-revolutionary” in your rebuke of suing churches but how can thay be compatible with support of those who are “progressive liberal” and/or “revolutionary” who do so in just the same way that you mention to what you call “counter-revolutionary”?
I totally support a diverse church as long as the foundations of the Christian Faith are not compromised.
As you can see from the story of my pastor and church your concerns go both ways and it is not a “counter-revolutionary” problem but leadership in some instances and layity in other istances not following what God’s Word says and trying to change interpretation of Scripture to a more “fleshly” interpretation as opposed to the Holy Spirit.
Also, what is wrong with “requiring clergy to sign belief statements that there is no salvation apart from confessing Christ.” when that truly is the only way for Salvation from Scripture?
dh 08.17.07 at 3:36 pm
I find it a travesty that my pastor was forced to leave when the leadership of the Episcopal church went against God’s Word and even with that had the audasity to make our church pay $1.5 million to leave when it is the congregations church and when the congregation paid in full over decades the church building and its property. For the leadership to force a church to pay $1.5 million or face having the property taken from the Episcopal church to me is not Christ-like and is very appauling.
PamBG 08.17.07 at 8:44 pm
It’s a very interesting question. All my encounters with the UMC Confessing Movement and Good News on the internet have suggested an attitude less than tolerant of diversity - even within their own ranks. They remind me of the denomination in which I grew up where the last verse of Revelation was invoked on the denominational doctrine (nothing may be added or subtracted to the doctrine). One can only hope that these individuals are at the lunatic fringe of that movement. If not, I predict that they will end up splitting amongst themselves; probably over issues like divorce, women ministers and baptism to start with.
dh 08.17.07 at 9:06 pm
Well I guess I don’t understand the hostility toward “confession” when Scripture says “If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and Believe in your heart that God has risen from the dead you shall be Saved.” or “Except a Man be Born Again he cannot see the Kingdom of God.” To say there are any other ways to receive Salvation really goes against Scripture and makes me understand why Churches would require of their clergy belief in what Scripture actually says about a subject that determines the destiny of souls. I predict those who divide by making churches go against Scripture will fall by the wayside as people look for the definitive nature and consistency that Scripture is at all times.
PamBG 08.17.07 at 11:13 pm
Jesus Christ is Lord. The doctrine of any confessing movement is not Lord.
We are to plant seeds. We are not stand inside the harvest-stores and pretend that we have the authority to separate the wheat from the chaff. The latter is God’s job.
Bene D 08.19.07 at 11:18 pm
Joel: I’m glad to see you are aware this has been spawned by the IRD.
Talke2Action is a site that strips away their pretense -John Dohauer has a fair number of columns that are part of the material he used for his new book; ‘Steeplejacking: How the Christian Right Is Hijacking Mainstream Religion’ as well as columns by others who have studied this group for many years.
Good article to start with:
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/2/21/123844/326
Mark Tooley had a lame article in FrontPage online recently attacking the British Methodist Church. (written for a US audience)
Joel 08.20.07 at 4:36 am
DH,
As I have written before, I think there is some hyperbole in John 14:6.
As to suits, if churches attempt to ignore the trust clause, thee is no other way to enforce the clause than by suit.
My problem with “confessing Christ” is with the narrow interpretation of what that means.
ee 08.20.07 at 4:41 pm
‘the definitive nature and consistency that Scripture is at all times.’
Really? How does God’s plan to reconcile all things to himself (cf. Ephesians) fit into an interpretation of salvation that places 99% of all humans out in the darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth, because they haven’t ‘trusted Christ’?
I don’t think we can be absolutely sure from Scripture how salvation is going to work out. Scripture is not consistent on this particular issue. The only thing Scripture is consistent about with this is that God is merciful, just and loving; and we have to trust his judgements in this light.
My point is that scripture requires interpreting, and those that interpret differently shouldn’t be unchurched because they reach different conclusions. Which was at least part of the point of Joel’s post.
dh 08.20.07 at 6:59 pm
Pam how can the doctrine of the confession movement not be from the Lord when Scripture says “If you confess with yuor mouth the Lord Jesus and Believe in your heart that God has risen from the dead you shall be saved.” Makes no sense.
Hyperbole? How can you say that in light of the above passage, this passage and others which confirm that it isn’t hyperbole.
EE, I do agree that God is loving, just, etc. However, if Christ didn’t do what He did on earth including His resurrection we all would “dead in our tresspass of sins” and would ALL deserve death. It would have been totally justifyable and fair for the whole earth and even no redemption. When I read Moses standing in the gap for the Israelites, Abraham standing in the gap for the cities, Noah, etc. then you can see how close humanity was from being destroyed and it would have been totally justifyable, fair and Holy for God to do that. Thank God so much that He loved us to make a way for those by Faith in Christ to receive the free gift of Salvation. (Without the shedding of blood there can be no remiscen of sins.”)
The reconciliation passage isn’t in Ephesians but in Colosians also we must remember who He is speaking to “Believers”. It seems clear that the reconciliation is refering to souls who have Faith in Himself. “If you deny Me I will deny you before My Father in heaven.”
dh 08.20.07 at 7:11 pm
Also, Pam with regard to the “wheat and tares” Scripture does say “By their fruit you shall know them.” Also Scripture states clearly in the Epistles defines “false doctrine” and “false teachers” and what constitutes them. When Scripture clearly states how one accepts and rejects Salvation and what happens to each for one then how can it be man saying this but God when Scripture says this not man? I’m not pretending to have authority my authority to recognize this comes from God’s Word. Also, Scripture mentions “discerning of Spirits” as a gift some even are able to discern things that appear to me to be “wheat and tares” issues. Not that I’m saying I have that particular gift but pointing out how Scripture states that we CAN identify from Scripture and the Holy Spirit the confirmation of Salvation in people. Are we perfect in that? absolutely not but we sure can get an idea at least as confirmed by “By their fruit you shall know them.” I will say for balance one shouldn’t say this without a loving heart but out of care for ones soul. If we rail like Scripture says “Racca” at people then we are sinning as well. There is a balance between stating truth and the attitude behind the stating of the Truth.
To all, I say this with all sincerity, love and care for all who read this. I truly love all who are reading this thread and want all to experience the fullness of Christ. I know I’m not perfect or know everything but with regard to this issue Scripture is clear. I also know I’m probably not relaying it perfectly but I know in my heart that Salvation is in Faith alone with Christ alone.
PamBG 08.20.07 at 8:09 pm
Pam how can the doctrine of the confession movement not be from the Lord
Where have I said ‘the doctrine of the confessing movement is not from the Lord?’
I said that I’ve watched people from the confessing movement discussing their issues on the internet. I said that they can’t even agree with each other and that if they succeed in splitting from the UMC, that it’s my bet that they will divide from each other on the issues of baptism, women ministers, and divorce.
dh 08.20.07 at 9:05 pm
Pam you said “Jesus Christ is Lord. The doctrine of any confessing movement is not Lord.” How can one say this in light of the passage on the importance of confession for Salvation? Since Jesus Christ through the Apostle Paul said “If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and Believe in your heart that God has risen from the dead you shall be saved.” Then this doctrine IS from the Lord. No one is placing the doctrine over the Lord but when God mentions in His Word how confession for Salvation must be done for Salvation then I don’t understand the hostility to the concept when Scripture is clear on it.
PamBG 08.20.07 at 10:36 pm
dh: I agree with what Joel says. The whole point of a confessing movements is to argee on a narrow interpretations of what it ‘really means’ to confess Jesus ‘properly’. From what I’ve seen of the UMC Confessing Movement, it is no exception.
I come from a tradition where schisms have actually become jokes, even within the tradition itself. If you really believe that God is going to be angry with you for having wrong beliefs, then you can’t worship with people who baptise infants if you ‘know’ God hates it. You can’t worship with a woman minister if you ‘know’ that she can’t be real Christian and God hates women ministers. You can’t worship with divorced and remarried people or those who allow it if you ‘know’ God hates it.
dh 08.21.07 at 2:34 pm
Pam, you totally missed my point. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that it is sin to baptise infants. With regard to divorced and married people one needs to look at what caused the divorce. For sexual imorality or for ones own physical safety there are legitamte Biblical reasons for that. Also, I never used the term “hate” or gave the impression of “hate”.
Pam, well with confession the definition of the concept is in the Bible “Confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and Believe in your heart that God is risen from the dead.” If one doesn’t believe that Jesus isn’t God how can that be true confession, the same for the physical and spiritual resurrection of Jesus, the same for recognizing that there is only one way for Salvation by Faith alone and with Christ alone. (please read the final balancing sentence) These don’t seem narrow to me and if one feels that they are then they need to take it up with Scripture as opposed to with individuals who happen to understand this Truth. Does that mean people say people aren’t believers based on things that are not part of the foundations for Salvation? absolutely. I know people who believe if you aren’t a member of certain denominations you aren’t a Christian, etc. So I agree 100% on your take on how these type of schisms are not from God at all. However there are foundations of Faith for Salvation that are mentioned specifically in Scripture that one really to have Faith in.
Also, I don’t believe God will be “angry” for one having wrong beliefs. A person might not be a Christian on certain ones but He isn’t angry. He is loving and wants all to come repentence if they choose to. To me the Romans road as well as all other passages Christ mentions for Salvation are pretty clear on how one enters the Kingdom .
PamBG 08.21.07 at 4:26 pm
dh, I really have no idea what you are talking about. Every time you post something you shift the conversation to another topic.
My point is simply that I find it difficult to understand how someone claims to be in favour of making the UMC a confessional church and then says that they are also in favour of the UMC being ‘open’. The two ideas are mutually exclusive, in my opinion.
Maybe the person who made the claim will answer my post and maybe he won’t.
Whatever other millions of other points you want to make I, frankly, do not understand.
dh 08.21.07 at 5:05 pm
Well Pam, you seemed to be the one who shifted the conversation with “If you really believe that God is going to be angry with you for having wrong beliefs, then you can’t worship with people who baptise infants if you ‘know’ God hates it. You can’t worship with a woman minister if you ‘know’ that she can’t be real Christian and God hates women ministers. You can’t worship with divorced and remarried people or those who allow it if you ‘know’ God hates it.”
I was trying to point out how you misrepresented what I’m trying to say in reference to the paragraph you said here.
With regard to the open vs. not open point you are making maybe we need to define what “open” means and to what degree. There really is no such thing as being 100% open with regard to this issue. There will always be some level of degree of not being open. I could come up with things that no church would be open about so the concept of 100% open really is nonexistent. So then that begs the question as to what “open” means and/or to what degree. To me following the Biblical example throught Scripture as opposed to just a few passages is more appropriate. (ie: People bring up how Jesus ate with the outcasts but fail to mention that Him eating was never done in such a way as a condoning of the behavior of whom He was eating with being that Christ was Holy.)
P.S. What don’t you understand about the other points I made? I will be glad to clarify. It seemed really straight forward what I said. I only brought up what you brought up because you seemed to be the one who shifted the conversation first not myself alone.
PamBG 08.21.07 at 6:01 pm
I was trying to point out how you misrepresented what I’m trying to say in reference to the paragraph you said here.
OK, please clarify how I’m misrepresenting you.
I’m saying that, from reading UMC Confessing Movement boards, it seems to me that there is a big split between people who believe that remarriage after divorce is wrong. One board member of Good News believes it’s wrong for even the betrayed spouse to remarry. Others disagree. Therefore I predict they will split over divorce.
There also seems to be a large group of people who believe that infant baptism is wrong. Therefore I predict that they willl split over baptism.
There also seems to be a large group of people who believe that women ministers are not real Christians (because if they were, they would know that they are not supposed to be ministers). Therefore, I predict that they will split over women ministers.
I’m thinking that our miscommunication here is that you seem to think I’m talking about your personal beliefs. I’m talking about what I’ve read on UMC confessing movement discussion boards. You may disagree with these views but people do hold them.
dh 08.21.07 at 6:13 pm
Well Pam, I believe you are the one who did the first “sidetracking” by bringing up all of these othere issues as opposed to the issue of “confession movements” alone. Let’s get back to the issue of that as opposed to all of the other issues. I have never seen anyone who believes that women ministers are not real Christians. See what you are doing is taking an extreme minority view and placating it to the majority which is a clear overgenerlaization.
I still haven’t heard from you why you disagree with “confession movement” when Scripture seems to be very clear with the passages I mentioned where it IS important. Your other “reasons for splitting” seem to me to be “red-herrings” in the discussion point which is the “confession movement” alone.
If we want to talk about open vs. non-open I refer to my previous statement here: “With regard to the open vs. not open point you are making maybe we need to define what “open†means and to what degree. There really is no such thing as being 100% open with regard to this issue. There will always be some level of degree of not being open. I could come up with things that no church would be open about so the concept of 100% open really is nonexistent. So then that begs the question as to what “open†means and/or to what degree. To me following the Biblical example throught Scripture as opposed to just a few passages is more appropriate. (ie: People bring up how Jesus ate with the outcasts but fail to mention that Him eating was never done in such a way as a condoning of the behavior of whom He was eating with being that Christ was Holy.)”
PamBG 08.23.07 at 8:01 pm
DH, where does scripture say it’s important to have a confessing movement? I’m sorry, but I have to ask you what on earth you are talking about?
I have already said that I believe in confessing Jesus Christ as Lord.
Beyond that, scripture is clear in telling us that judgement of a person’s eternal condition belongs to God alone. This is why I do not believe in any confessing movement.
If the UMC Confessing Movement were only about ‘confessing Jesus Christ as Lord’, then I’d have no objections. From what I have seen of it, the movement is not simply about ‘confessing Jesus Christ as Lord’.
dh 08.23.07 at 10:05 pm
Pam, maybe I don’t understand “Confessing Movement”. To me a “confession Movement” where people accept Christ, we agree with, but includes that Jesus is and was fully God at all times (”confess with your mouth and Believe in your heart that GOD has risen from the dead.”) as well as believe the same in Christ physical and Spiritual resurrection to me makes the “confessing Movement” appropriate. Confession Movement that says that Salvation is by Faith in Christ alone to me should also not be objected to.
While I agree with you that judgement is the Lord’s, I also Believe that God says through His Word that “By their fruit you shall know them.”, “If you deny Me I will deny you before My Father in heaven.”, Scriptures that state what happens to those whose names are not written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, Christ saying “the weeping and gnashing of teeth”, etc. To me judgement is the Lord’s but He also states who, what, why, where and how to every soul the nature of that judgement. To me if we say what Scripture says clearly, and believe me it is clear, what Scripture says we can help people to not experience that judgement. While you might think, and I would agree with you, that Salvation is beyond “fire insurance” that it includes more importantly, accepting Christ as ones Savior and living for Christ thereafter; we must not reject that part of leading person to Christ is an understanding of the judgement when Scripture says about itself that the Spirit convicts a person of “…sin, righteousness and judgement.”
P.S. If you could state to me where the confession movement is not just confessing Jesus is Lord I would be glad to here all of the details and where it differs from my above understanding. I might and probably don’t have a full understanding of the “Confession Movement”. I might have projected, I don’t think there is any non-similarities but there might, my understanding to be like the confession movements or revivals where people accepted Christ as their Savior by Confession. My take and Scriptures take is that ALL Salvations are only by Christ alone by Faith in Christ alone. What are your thoughts? and where am I misunderstanding what the UMC “Confession Movement” is about? What are the additional aspects of the confession movement that go beyond just confession that “Jesus is Lord”?
PamBG 08.23.07 at 11:04 pm
DH, you can do a websearch for ‘Confessing Movement’, ‘Unofficial Confessing Movement’ and ‘Good News’. These are all UMC people trying to make the UMC a ‘confessing church’. Where I believe that they and all other confessing movements go beyond scripture is in their attempt to add many additional requirements to ‘being a real Christian’ above and beyond the creeds.
dh 08.24.07 at 3:10 pm
Well Pam, I read the “Confession Movement” things and I really enjoyed them. I personally believe that the “Confession Movement” isn’t a movement to add additional things to be a Christian but more a statement of belief founded solidly on Scripture. We know that the Creeds don’t include many things that Scripture says defintiively in Scripture. Many of those are in the area of Sanctification and others go into more detail of what a particular statement in the creed says. To me Scripture is our basis not a creed. After reading the Confession Movement I see how it IS founded in Scripture and after reading each statement I was able to find Scripture that clearly substantiates specifically each aspect of Confession Movement. After reading the site, it seems strange to me to attack the movement when each and every aspect is founded on specific Scripture. How can this go beyond Scripture when each part has Scripture standing by it? I also believe those who say that some of what is confessed are requirements for Salvation when that is not the case. This is more of a doctrinal statement which includes what is needed for Salvation and what is needed for proper Sanctification of the Believer thereafter. The Apostle Paul mentions specifically issues relating to “false doctrine”, “False teaching” and the like and this “confession” addresses that as well as what is needed for Salvation. I personally on the site would seperate the two out and had two confessions but that doesn’t change that what is said as being true and straight from Scripture.
I really liked this maybe the two seperate confessions ARE on this site. I will add that one must receive this into their heart as opposed to just praying and pray and that alone without a “heart, soul and mind” confession.
: “Invitation to accept Christ
The Bible tells us:
We all sin! — (Romans 3:23 NRSV) . . . since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God…
Sin is when we break God’s law, even just once. Just because we obey the law most of the time, it is when we break it only once that we become law breakers.
In Luke 10:25-28 Jesus says to love God and our neighbor as ourselves.
(Luke 10:25-28 NRSV) Just then a lawyer stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he said, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 He said to him, “What is written in the law? What do you read there?” 27 He answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” 28 And he said to him, “You have given the right answer; do this, and you will live.”
Our sin is selfishness. . . loving ourselves more than God and our neighbor.
We deserve death! — (Romans 6:23 NRSV) For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. If we all sin, then we all deserve death. We are sinners now. We start paying those wages now. We feel it when we are in spiritual and emotional pain. Have you ever felt those wages?
But, Jesus has a gift for us, which is eternal life.. That begins now, too, if we receive the gift.
Would you like to receive the gift of eternal life?
Jesus has the gift of eternal life for us! — (John 1:12 NRSV) But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God. When we receive that gift Jesus has for us, he gives us the power to become God’s children now. And, after we die, we live with Him as God’s family.
The most important thing is that you receive the gift.
Salvation (eternal life) is not really yours until you reach out and receive it. Do you want to receive forgiveness for your sin and receive the gift of eternal life? It requires an act of faith, which is a conscious decision followed by an act. ——————————————————————————–
Decision Time! I act in faith to receive eternal life, and be saved. ——————————————————————————–
P.S. and I would add it must be giving ones “heart, soul and mind” as opposed to just being a conscious decision. It requires giving ALL OF OUR BEING to Christ. (Just a little thing I had a problem with on the “confession” here.)
Richard 08.25.07 at 7:02 pm
Hi folks! I’m back. You’ve obviously been having fun without me. Forgive me saying so, DH, but I as I read through this thread I can’t help feeling that you’ve entered this conversation without really knowing anything about the ‘Confessing Movement’ or UMC polity. That isn’t a good basis for reasoned debate.
To pick up Joel’s closing point, I’d say that either the UMC’s diversity is threatened by the pressure from the Confessing Movement. The success of the second will mean the end of the first.
Joel 08.25.07 at 11:02 pm
Thanks for the good reading. I’ve been busy working on a response to Josh’s post in response to mine in response to his. It isn’t easy because it requires a lot of assumptions, a few almost outright guesses and then trying to see if I undertand historical happenings as the event-makers would have understood them.
dh 08.26.07 at 5:43 am
I agree I went in too fast up front and came in with some assumptions. For that I apologize. However, after reading the websites from Pam on the subject it seemed that my assumptions were correct. I think it appears a little hasty to say that the confession beyond the basic foundation of receiving Christ are not “added to” by the nature of the “Confession Movement”. For example, there are many Christian churches that I agree not to be part of based on certain doctrines even though they may agree with me on how one becomes a Believer. I see that as analogous to the Confession Movement as opposed to seeing the Confession Movement as adding to the requirements of how one becomes a Christian. At the same time, I attend churches where I agree to disagree and have a wonderful relationship with. I’m a regular attender of the Anglican church (Ugandan diocese) and a strong Evangelical Presbyterian church. This goes along with my BaptiNazaevangelicostal that we mentioned a way back in the past. If the foundations of the Christian Faith are not being attempted to be jeopardized I have no problem with attending, etc. those churches.
Since there is no contradiction with the movement and Scripture than I see nothing wrong with and I also think it is strange to reject it when peoples lives are changed by people accepting Christ as their Savior from it. (This is after readin throughly the wbsite on the matter from Pam.)