Liberia-District Superintendent on the Amendments to UMC Constitution

May 24, 2009 Posted by imagebearer | Uncategorized, United Methodist Church | Leave a Comment

The Constitutional Amendments of the UMC

Some are asking this question. Is There a Conspiracy Of Silence About The Constitutional Amendments?

By Dr. Bill Bouknight

Just imagine if 32 changes were being proposed in the U.S. Constitution. The newspapers and TV talk-shows would be dominated by the proposed amendments.

Well, we United Methodists are being asked to change our Church Constitution in 32 specific ways. But the official Church media is amazingly silent about it all. I see no articles pro or con in the UM Report, Circuit Rider, or the UM News Service.

Some of the African annual conferences that met in February or March did not even receive the official copies of the amendments–translated into their languages– until just a few weeks or even days before their conferences began. How odd that brothers and sisters in our worldwide connection are being allowed so little time to review, digest, and debate a number of amendments that will purportedly make us a more “worldwide” Church!

Is there a conspiracy of silence? Do some United Methodist leaders hope that many members of annual conferences will just rubber-stamp what General Conference did in passing these amendments?

I have a report from one U.S. annual conference that the amendments have been scheduled for the last day of conference (when many participants will have already departed) and that a total of 45 minutes has been planned for discussion and action on all 32 of them!

One amendment that deserves our support is # XIX (19) which would give most provisional members and local pastors the right to vote for clergy delegates to General and Jurisdictional conferences. If all the other 31 amendments were to fail, the Church would not suffer for it.

The most dangerous amendments are in two categories:

1. Amendment # I, if approved, would give the Judicial Council ample reason to strip from local clergy their historic responsibility to help prospective church members determine whether they are ready to receive the membership vows. Furthermore, if this amendment is approved, gay advocacy groups will argue before the Judicial Council that Paragraph 4 guarantees a self-avowed, practicing homosexual the right not only to church membership but also to all other levels of service in the Church.

2. The second dangerous category includes a package of 23 separate amendments under the general title “Worldwide Nature-UMC.” These amendments would create regional conferences across the entire Church. In the U.S., this would add another layer of bureaucracy between the General and Jurisdictional conferences. Each of these regional conferences would have some power to adapt the Book of Discipline as it so chooses. Evidently, some UM leaders want to segregate the U.S. Church from overseas United Methodists, almost 90 percent of whom live in Africa. The African portion of our Church is growing very rapidly and is predominantly conservative in theology.

Most African United Methodists believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God and is “the true rule and guide for faith and practice.” (Book of Discipline) Therefore, most Africans do not approve of liberalizing the Church’s position on the practice of homosexuality. That one issue has dominated the United Methodist Church in America for at least 25 years. But underneath that issue is a more fundamental one—the authority of Scripture.

These amendments can be defeated! It only takes 33.67 percent of all the voting delegates in all the annual conferences around the world to vote against them. Every vote counts!

May 24, 2009 Posted by imagebearer | Uncategorized, United Methodist Church | Leave a Comment

Annual Conference UMC Amendments

Interesting information for those attending Annual Conference in June @ Lake Junaluska. Please be in prayer for Our United Methodist Church and take action when possible. Please be familiar with the issues and vote the way you are convicted.

Ronnie

Here is another view of Amendment #1 to be voted on at Annual Conference in June. I add it here because I believe that everyone has the right to be heard.

Here are a couple of thoughts as you watch all of these video’s and then decide what Scripture teaches.

#1 It is obvious that amendment 1 is in reference to Our United Methodist Book of Discipline and the stance against ordination of practicing homosexuals.

#2 The wording seems mis-leading in this first video: In the church that I am a part of, no one is excluded from attending the services. Everyone is welcome. However, I would never vote to ordain anyone who is living in a continual sin. Be that adultery, homosexual practice, cheating, stealing, gossip, etc.

#3 We must deal with what the Bible says and not what the culture dictates.

#4 Everyone has the right and responsibility to know what the issues are and to vote what is biblically correct.

#5 Watch all of the videos. read your Scripture and Pray for Discernment.

Ronnie

Here is information on the oficial United Methodist Church Stance

HomosexualityWho sets policy for the United Methodist Church? Only the General Conference can speak officially for the United Methodist Church. Every four years, delegates at each conference revise the Book of Discipline and Book of Resolutions. The Social Principles, in both books, are described as a “prayerful and thoughtful effort on the part of the General Conference to speak to the human issues in the contemporary world from a sound biblical and theological foundation as historically demonstrated in United Methodist traditions.” The Book of Resolutions is not legally binding but serves as a guide for the church for reference, encouragement, study and support.

Homosexuality
(Updated 6/01)

Controversy during the United Methodist Church’s 1997-2000 quadrennium swirled around a prohibition placed in the Social Principles by the 1996 General Conference. The Judicial Council ruled Aug. 11, 1998, that the following statement does have the force of church law: “Ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches.” Clergy violating this prohibition can, according to the Judicial Council, be charged with violating the order and discipline of the church. They can be tried in a church court, and penalties upon conviction can include loss of ministerial credentials. The 2000 General Conference moved the statement from the Social Principles to a section of law and procedures dealing with ordained clergy, where it appears in a list of “unauthorized conduct.”

An outline of the church’s current statements on homosexuality appears below, followed immediately by a historical outline of the controversy within the denomination. Relevant proposals rejected by the 2000 General Conference are also summarized.

The positions of The United Methodist Church on matters related to homosexuality are found in several sections of the current 2000 Book of Discipline and 2000 Book of Resolutions.

1. Regarding inclusiveness

Underlying all other positions of the denomination is the constitutional principle of “Inclusiveness of the Church,” stated in Paragraph 4 of the Book of Discipline: “The United Methodist Church is a part of the church universal, which is one Body in Christ. Therefore all persons shall be eligible to attend its worship services, to participate in its programs, and, when they take the appropriate vows, to be admitted into its membership in any local church in the connection.”

2. Regarding the practice of homosexuality
(Part of a larger statement on “Human Sexuality” appearing in “The Nurturing Community,” a section of the church’s Social Principles. Paragraph 161G. The 2000 General Conference added the sentence in boldface to this paragraph.)
“Homosexual persons no less than heterosexual persons are individuals of sacred worth. All persons need the ministry and guidance 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. Although we do not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider this practice incompatible with Christian teaching, we affirm that God’s grace is available to all. We implore families and churches not to reject or condemn their lesbian and gay members and friends. We commit ourselves to be in ministry for and with all persons.”

3. Regarding equal rights
(Section H, Paragraph 162, of the Social Principles under “III. The Social Community.”)
“Equal Rights Regardless of Sexual Orientation — Certain basic human rights and civil liberties are due all persons. We are committed to supporting those rights and liberties for homosexual persons. We see a clear issue of simple justice in protecting their rightful claims where they have shared material resources, pensions, guardian relationships, mutual powers of attorney, and other such lawful claims typically attendant to contractual relationships that involve shared contributions, responsibilities, and liabilities, and equal protection before the law. Moreover, we support efforts to stop violence and other forms of coercion against gays and lesbians. We also commit ourselves to social witness against the coercion and marginalization of former homosexuals.”

4. Regarding ordination
(From the Book of Discipline section dealing with the ordained ministry, Paragraph 304.3)
“While persons set apart by the Church for ordained ministry are subject to all the frailties of the human condition and the pressures of society, they are required to maintain the highest standards of holy living in the world. Since the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching, self-avowed practicing homosexuals* are not to be accepted as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church.”
*Footnote — ” ‘Self-avowed practicing homosexual’ is understood to mean that a person openly acknowledges to a bishop, district superintendent, district committee of ordained ministry, board of ordained ministry, or clergy session that the person is a practicing homosexual.”

5. Regarding homosexual unions
As noted earlier, the sentence “Ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches” was moved from the Social Principles section on marriage to a part of the Book of Discipline dealing with the behavior of ordained clergy.
While the sentence on same-sex unions was located in the Social Principles during the last quadrennium, it resulted in three clergy trials, a controversial investigation and a special session of the Judicial Council, the church’s equivalent of the Supreme Court.
The Rev. Jimmy Creech, a clergy member of the Nebraska Annual Conference, performed a union ceremony for two women at First United Methodist Church in Omaha Sept. 14, 1997. At the conclusion of a three-day church trial in Nebraska in March 1998, Creech was acquitted of violating the order and discipline of the church. He was again taken to trial in Nebraska in November 1999 after he performed a union ceremony for two men in North Carolina in April 1999. Between the trials, the church’s Judicial Council ruled Aug. 11, 1998, that the disciplinary sentence against same-sex unions is law and that clergy who violate the prohibition could be charged with disobeying the order and discipline of the church and could lose their ministerial credentials. That is what happened at Creech’s second trial. He is no longer a United Methodist clergyman.
Another United Methodist pastor, the Rev. Gregory Dell, a member of the Northern Illinois Annual Conference, performed a union ceremony for two men Sept. 19, 1998, at Broadway United Methodist Church in Chicago and was taken to trial March 25-26, 1999. There he was suspended from his ministerial duties. That suspension was lifted in summer 2000. Dell had been elected a delegate to the church’s 2000 General Conference from the Northern Illinois Annual Conference but was not seated because of the suspension.
Charges were filed against 69 United Methodist ministers who gathered Jan. 16, 1999, in a public building in Sacramento, Calif., to bless the union of two women. An investigation committee of the annual conference reviewed the charges and announced Feb. 11, 2000, that it would not place the clergy on trial and was dismissing the case. That decision, applauded by some and condemned by others, sparked a major debate across the church during the months before General Conference in Cleveland, May 2-12.

6. Regarding use of church money
(From the Book of Discipline section on “Administrative Order,” dealing with the responsibilities of the churchwide “Council on Finance and Administration,” Paragraph 806.9.)
“[The council] shall be responsible for ensuring that no board, agency, committee, commission, or council shall give United Methodist funds to any gay caucus or group, or otherwise use such funds to promote the acceptance of homosexuality. The council shall have the right to stop such expenditures.* This restriction shall not limit the church’s ministry in response to the HIV epidemic.”
* A footnote refers to Judicial Council Decision No. 491, which authorized the right of an annual conference to use funds to study homophobia, and No. 592, which gave the General Conference the right to create and fund a study of homosexuality.

7. Regarding homosexuals in the military
(A resolution passed by the 1996 General Conference. Found on Page 160 in the 2000 Book of Resolutions).
Homosexuals in the Military
“Basis: The United States of America, a nation built on equal rights, has denied the right of homosexuals to actively serve their country while being honest about who they are. Meanwhile, The United Methodist Church is moving toward accepting all people for who they are. The United Methodist Church needs to be an advocate for equal civil rights for all marginalized groups, including homosexuals.
“Conclusion: The U.S. military should not exclude persons from service solely on the basis of sexual orientation.”

May 24, 2009 Posted by imagebearer | Uncategorized, United Methodist Church | Leave a Comment

Soaring: Bishop James Swanson’s Blog: Holston Conference UMC

May 9, 2009 Posted by imagebearer | Uncategorized, United Methodist Church | Leave a Comment

United Methodist Membership Amendment

Here are two views on the Amendment on Church Membership that will be voted on at Annual Conference. Below is Scripture for you to read and ponder. You decide!

Ronnie 

]

I Corinthians 5 New Living Translation

 ¹ I can hardly believe the report about the sexual immorality going on among you—something that even pagans don’t do. I am told that a man in your church is living in sin with his stepmother. ² You are so proud of yourselves, but you should be mourning in sorrow and shame. And you should remove this man from your fellowship. ³ Even though I am not with you in person, I am with you in the Spirit. And as though I were there, I have already passed judgment on this man ⁴ in the name of the Lord Jesus. You must call a meeting of the church. I will be present with you in spirit, and so will the power of our Lord Jesus. ⁵ Then you must throw this man out and hand him over to Satan so that his sinful nature will be destroyed and he himself will be saved on the day the Lord returns.

 ⁶ Your boasting about this is terrible. Don’t you realize that this sin is like a little yeast that spreads through the whole batch of dough? ⁷ Get rid of the old “yeast” by removing this wicked person from among you. Then you will be like a fresh batch of dough made without yeast, which is what you really are. Christ, our Passover Lamb, has been sacrificed for us. ⁸ So let us celebrate the festival, not with the old bread of wickedness and evil, but with the new bread of sincerity and truth.

 ⁹ When I wrote to you before, I told you not to associate with people who indulge in sexual sin. ¹⁰ But I wasn’t talking about unbelievers who indulge in sexual sin, or are greedy, or cheat people, or worship idols. You would have to leave this world to avoid people like that. ¹¹ I meant that you are not to associate with anyone who claims to be a believer yet indulges in sexual sin, or is greedy, or worships idols, or is abusive, or is a drunkard, or cheats people. Don’t even eat with such people.

 ¹² It isn’t my responsibility to judge outsiders, but it certainly is your responsibility to judge those inside the church who are sinning. ¹³ God will judge those on the outside; but as the Scriptures say, “You must remove the evil person from among you.”

May 8, 2009 Posted by imagebearer | Uncategorized, United Methodist Church | Leave a Comment

United Methodist Church Listens

May 8, 2009 Posted by imagebearer | Uncategorized, United Methodist Church | Leave a Comment

Amendments to be voted on @ Annual Conferences

Interesting information for those attending Annual Conference in June @ Lake Junaluska. Please be in prayer for Our United Methodist Church and take action when possible. Please be familiar with the issues and vote the way you are convicted.

Ronnie

Here is another view of Amendment #1 to be voted on at Annual Conference in June. I add it here because I believe that everyone has the right to be heard.

Here are a couple of thoughts as you watch all of these video’s and then decide what Scripture teaches.

#1 It is obvious that amendment 1 is in reference to Our United Methodist Book of Discipline and the stance against ordination of practicing homosexuals.

#2 The wording seems mis-leading in this first video: In the church that I am a part of, no one is excluded from attending the services. Everyone is welcome. However, I would never vote to ordain anyone who is living in a continual sin. Be that adultery, homosexual practice, cheating, stealing, gossip, etc.

#3 We must deal with what the Bible says and not what the culture dictates.

#4 Everyone has the right and responsibility to know what the issues are and to vote what is biblically correct.

#5 Watch all of the videos. read your Scripture and Pray for Discernment.

Ronnie

Here is information on the oficial United Methodist Church Stance

HomosexualityWho sets policy for the United Methodist Church? Only the General Conference can speak officially for the United Methodist Church. Every four years, delegates at each conference revise the Book of Discipline and Book of Resolutions. The Social Principles, in both books, are described as a “prayerful and thoughtful effort on the part of the General Conference to speak to the human issues in the contemporary world from a sound biblical and theological foundation as historically demonstrated in United Methodist traditions.” The Book of Resolutions is not legally binding but serves as a guide for the church for reference, encouragement, study and support.

Homosexuality
(Updated 6/01)

Controversy during the United Methodist Church’s 1997-2000 quadrennium swirled around a prohibition placed in the Social Principles by the 1996 General Conference. The Judicial Council ruled Aug. 11, 1998, that the following statement does have the force of church law: “Ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches.” Clergy violating this prohibition can, according to the Judicial Council, be charged with violating the order and discipline of the church. They can be tried in a church court, and penalties upon conviction can include loss of ministerial credentials. The 2000 General Conference moved the statement from the Social Principles to a section of law and procedures dealing with ordained clergy, where it appears in a list of “unauthorized conduct.”

An outline of the church’s current statements on homosexuality appears below, followed immediately by a historical outline of the controversy within the denomination. Relevant proposals rejected by the 2000 General Conference are also summarized.

The positions of The United Methodist Church on matters related to homosexuality are found in several sections of the current 2000 Book of Discipline and 2000 Book of Resolutions.

1. Regarding inclusiveness

Underlying all other positions of the denomination is the constitutional principle of “Inclusiveness of the Church,” stated in Paragraph 4 of the Book of Discipline: “The United Methodist Church is a part of the church universal, which is one Body in Christ. Therefore all persons shall be eligible to attend its worship services, to participate in its programs, and, when they take the appropriate vows, to be admitted into its membership in any local church in the connection.”

2. Regarding the practice of homosexuality
(Part of a larger statement on “Human Sexuality” appearing in “The Nurturing Community,” a section of the church’s Social Principles. Paragraph 161G. The 2000 General Conference added the sentence in boldface to this paragraph.)
“Homosexual persons no less than heterosexual persons are individuals of sacred worth. All persons need the ministry and guidance 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. Although we do not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider this practice incompatible with Christian teaching, we affirm that God’s grace is available to all. We implore families and churches not to reject or condemn their lesbian and gay members and friends. We commit ourselves to be in ministry for and with all persons.”

3. Regarding equal rights
(Section H, Paragraph 162, of the Social Principles under “III. The Social Community.”)
“Equal Rights Regardless of Sexual Orientation — Certain basic human rights and civil liberties are due all persons. We are committed to supporting those rights and liberties for homosexual persons. We see a clear issue of simple justice in protecting their rightful claims where they have shared material resources, pensions, guardian relationships, mutual powers of attorney, and other such lawful claims typically attendant to contractual relationships that involve shared contributions, responsibilities, and liabilities, and equal protection before the law. Moreover, we support efforts to stop violence and other forms of coercion against gays and lesbians. We also commit ourselves to social witness against the coercion and marginalization of former homosexuals.”

4. Regarding ordination
(From the Book of Discipline section dealing with the ordained ministry, Paragraph 304.3)
“While persons set apart by the Church for ordained ministry are subject to all the frailties of the human condition and the pressures of society, they are required to maintain the highest standards of holy living in the world. Since the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching, self-avowed practicing homosexuals* are not to be accepted as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church.”
*Footnote — ” ‘Self-avowed practicing homosexual’ is understood to mean that a person openly acknowledges to a bishop, district superintendent, district committee of ordained ministry, board of ordained ministry, or clergy session that the person is a practicing homosexual.”

5. Regarding homosexual unions
As noted earlier, the sentence “Ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches” was moved from the Social Principles section on marriage to a part of the Book of Discipline dealing with the behavior of ordained clergy.
While the sentence on same-sex unions was located in the Social Principles during the last quadrennium, it resulted in three clergy trials, a controversial investigation and a special session of the Judicial Council, the church’s equivalent of the Supreme Court.
The Rev. Jimmy Creech, a clergy member of the Nebraska Annual Conference, performed a union ceremony for two women at First United Methodist Church in Omaha Sept. 14, 1997. At the conclusion of a three-day church trial in Nebraska in March 1998, Creech was acquitted of violating the order and discipline of the church. He was again taken to trial in Nebraska in November 1999 after he performed a union ceremony for two men in North Carolina in April 1999. Between the trials, the church’s Judicial Council ruled Aug. 11, 1998, that the disciplinary sentence against same-sex unions is law and that clergy who violate the prohibition could be charged with disobeying the order and discipline of the church and could lose their ministerial credentials. That is what happened at Creech’s second trial. He is no longer a United Methodist clergyman.
Another United Methodist pastor, the Rev. Gregory Dell, a member of the Northern Illinois Annual Conference, performed a union ceremony for two men Sept. 19, 1998, at Broadway United Methodist Church in Chicago and was taken to trial March 25-26, 1999. There he was suspended from his ministerial duties. That suspension was lifted in summer 2000. Dell had been elected a delegate to the church’s 2000 General Conference from the Northern Illinois Annual Conference but was not seated because of the suspension.
Charges were filed against 69 United Methodist ministers who gathered Jan. 16, 1999, in a public building in Sacramento, Calif., to bless the union of two women. An investigation committee of the annual conference reviewed the charges and announced Feb. 11, 2000, that it would not place the clergy on trial and was dismissing the case. That decision, applauded by some and condemned by others, sparked a major debate across the church during the months before General Conference in Cleveland, May 2-12.

6. Regarding use of church money
(From the Book of Discipline section on “Administrative Order,” dealing with the responsibilities of the churchwide “Council on Finance and Administration,” Paragraph 806.9.)
“[The council] shall be responsible for ensuring that no board, agency, committee, commission, or council shall give United Methodist funds to any gay caucus or group, or otherwise use such funds to promote the acceptance of homosexuality. The council shall have the right to stop such expenditures.* This restriction shall not limit the church’s ministry in response to the HIV epidemic.”
* A footnote refers to Judicial Council Decision No. 491, which authorized the right of an annual conference to use funds to study homophobia, and No. 592, which gave the General Conference the right to create and fund a study of homosexuality.

7. Regarding homosexuals in the military
(A resolution passed by the 1996 General Conference. Found on Page 160 in the 2000 Book of Resolutions).
Homosexuals in the Military
“Basis: The United States of America, a nation built on equal rights, has denied the right of homosexuals to actively serve their country while being honest about who they are. Meanwhile, The United Methodist Church is moving toward accepting all people for who they are. The United Methodist Church needs to be an advocate for equal civil rights for all marginalized groups, including homosexuals.
“Conclusion: The U.S. military should not exclude persons from service solely on the basis of sexual orientation.”

May 5, 2009 Posted by imagebearer | Uncategorized, United Methodist Church | Leave a Comment

32 Amendments to be considered by 2009 Annual Conference sessions

United Methodist Bishop Sharon Rader, along with Bishops Scott Jones (left) and Ruediger Minor, present the findings of the Council of Bishops Task Force on the Global Nature of the Church during a May 2008 consultation in Norcross, Ga. UMNS photo by Ronny Perry 32 Amendments to be considered by 2009 Annual Conference sessions           By J. Richard Peck Voting members of 134 annual conferences around the world will consider 32 amendments to the Constitution of The United Methodist Church as they meet in the coming months. The 62 U.S. annual conferences will begin meeting in May.         Voters will be ordained elders and deacons in full connection and all lay members of the conferences. Members may debate a proposed amendment, but they cannot change it. They must vote either for or against an amendment as it stands.   Twenty-three of the 32 amendments result from a 2005-2008 study by the Council of Bishops’ Task Force on the Global Nature of the Church.   That report said the denomination’s present structure makes it appear to be a U.S. church with appendages in Africa, Asia and Europe. At the same time, the number of United Methodists outside the United States is increasing and may soon be 40 percent.   The Council of Bishops and the Connectional Table approved the task force’s report in the spring of 2007 and sent proposed legislation to the 2008 General Conference suggesting that the name of conferences outside the United States be changed from “Central” to “Regional.”   General Conference delegates agreed that “regional” more accurately describes what these conferences do: address issues unique to the mission and ministry of conferences in that geographic area. Some also suggested that “central” is too reminiscent of the racially segregated U.S. Central Jurisdiction (1939-1968).   Amendments 3-5, 7, 10-14, 16, 18, 20, 21 and 23-32 change the name of “central conference” to “regional conference.” If approved, the name change takes effect on Jan.1, 2013.   None of the amendments will eliminate the jurisdictions in the United States where bishops are elected. The proposed amendments would allow regional conferences in Asia, Africa or Europe the right to establish jurisdictional structures.   The name change will not make the United States into a separate regional conference.   In October 2008, Judicial Council, the Supreme Court of the denomination, ruled “the 2012 General Conference must enact enabling legislation in order to effect the creation of a regional conference or regional conferences in the United States and implement the amendment.”   The 2012 General Conference would not change, but decisions made by that body could alter the design of future regional and international assemblies.           Bishop Scott Jones of Kansas speaks in favor of proposed changes to the structure of The United Methodist Church during a Jan. 25, 2008, panel discussion on “The Worldwide Nature of the Church: What It Means.” A UMNS photo by Marta W. Aldrich Study committee chair favors creation of U.S. regional body           Kansas Area Bishop Scott Jones, chair of a Study Committee on the Worldwide Nature of the Church, said that the creation of a U.S. regional body would not change General Conference’s authority over all matters distinctly connectional.   “The bishops and Connectional Table have proposed that all matters related to doctrine, Social Principles and ordination standards would continue to be decided by the General Conference and applied worldwide,” Jones said. “For example, one part of the church cannot decide in principle not to ordain women. No United Methodist entity can decide to abolish episcopacy. Our basic ministerial orders of local pastors, deacons and elders apply everywhere. All of the Social Principles are truly worldwide in scope. Because of their controversial nature they must continue to be decided at the worldwide level by General Conference or else our church will split.”   Jones notes that non-U.S. bishops unanimously voted in favor of the plan that would allow the most important and unifying decisions to be made by General Conference. Regional conferences would make other decisions.   Jones says legislation proposes creation by General Conference of one or more regional conferences in the United States.   “This would be of great help for U.S. churches to discuss issues like the hymnal, new church planting, seminaries, the Black College Fund and other issues that are unique to us,” said the bishop. “Similar regional issues should be discussed at regional meetings in Africa, Europe and Asia.”   The plan envisions that the General Conference would meet first with the regional conferences meeting in the succeeding months of that year. The Rev. Eddie Fox participates in a Jan. 25, 2008, panel discussion on “The Worldwide Nature of the Church: What It Means” during the United Methodist Pre-General Conference News Briefing in Fort Worth, Texas. UMNS photo by Marta W. Aldrich World evangelism leader opposes the creation of a U.S. regional conference The Rev. Eddie Fox, a General Conference delegate and world director of evangelism for the World Methodist Council, says he will vote against the amendments. He believes changing “central” to “regional” is a not substantive change, but he does oppose the creation of a U.S. regional conference.   “In the Appalachian Mountains where I grew up, we did not ‘open the gate’ until we knew what would be coming through the gate,” said Fox. “Why would we change the Constitution as our first action before we do the study?   “In the 2008 Discipline the functions of the jurisdictional conference and the Central Conference are essentially the same,” said Fox. “Another level with its financial cost and added bureaucracy will negatively impact our focus and worldwide ministry and mission.”   Fox, who is also a member of the Connectional Table, says that now is not the time to make this change, as the church is becoming more global. “In 1968, 92 percent of the membership of our church was in the U.S.,” he said. “In 2008, 64 percent of the membership is in the U.S.; when we meet in 2012, the ratio could be close to 50 percent. Why take this action now when the growth of our church outside the United States has a positive, needed impact on our life together?” Amendment would grant church membership to all who take vows   Proposed Amendment 1 would clarify that all people are eligible to attend worship services and receive the sacraments by striking the words “without regard to race, color, national origin, status or other economic condition.” The Constitution now states that after baptism and taking vows declaring the Christian faith, people may become professing members in any local church. The proposed paragraph adds a clause stating they must also declare their “relationship in Jesus Christ.”   Writing in the March/April 2009 issue of Good News magazine, the Rev. Walter B. Fenton, a clergy member in New Jersey, calls this amendment “potentially divisive” and “an indirect attempt by special interest groups to ensure the acceptance and full participation of self-avowed practicing homosexuals in all areas of the life of the church.”   Following a 2005 Judicial Council ruling supporting the decision of a pastor in Virginia not to allow a gay man to join his congregation, the Council of Bishops issued a letter stating: “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.” Amendment would extend voting rights Amendment 19 would allow all clergy members of annual conferences to vote to elect clergy delegates to general, jurisdictional or central conferences. Only ordained elders and deacons in full connection now vote. This amendment would extend voting privileges to associate members, provisional members who have completed all of their educational requirements and local pastors who have completed course of study or a Master of Divinity degree and have served a minimum of two consecutive years under appointment immediately preceding the election.   The Rev. Mary Ann Moman of the Division of Ordained Ministry of the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry said that if this amendment passes, associate members, provisional members and qualifying local pastors would be able to vote for delegates to the 2012 General Conference in spite of the fact that Para. 602 of The Book of Discipline 2008 states that they are ineligible to vote. Other Amendments   Amendment 2 would require all United Methodist organizations to adopt ethics and conflict-of-interest policies for board members and employees.   Amendment 6 addresses an issue that followed the 2004 admission of the Cote d’Ivoire Annual Conference to the denomination. The conference has more than 500,000 members, but had only two delegates to the 2008 General Conference. The amendment says that newly established conferences could be represented on a non-proportional basis for two quadrennia.   Amendment 8 adds the word “gender” to paragraphs declaring the power of General Conference to govern membership of agencies. They would allow the conference to fix conditions, privileges and duties of church membership, which shall, in every case, be without reference to race, gender or status.   Amendment 9 would ensure that every jurisdictional conference has at least 100 members.   Amendment 15 would reduce from two to one the number of years a lay person must be a church member before being elected a member of an annual conference. It also eliminates a requirement that they be active participants in church.   Amendment 17 would reinstate legislation adopted by the 2004 General Conference and subsequently declared unconstitutional by the Judicial Council allowing laity on the committee on investigation to vote on matters of ordination, character, and conference relations of clergy.   Amendment 22 would recognize Bermuda congregations as part of the Baltimore-Washington Annual Conference.     –The Rev. J. Richard Peck is a retired member of the New York Annual Conference and communications director for the General Commission on United Methodist Men.     The Constitution of the United Methodist Church   The General Conferences of the Evangelical United Brethren Church and the Methodist Church adopted the Constitution in 1966, clearing the way for their merger into The United Methodist Church in 1968.   Most portions of the Constitution can be amended by a two-thirds affirmative vote of General Conference delegates followed by a two-thirds affirmative vote of all annual conference members in the U.S., Asia, Africa and Europe. The Council of Bishops then adds the total votes from all annual conferences on each amendment. If at least 66.6 percent of all votes are in the affirmative, the amendment is ratified. The Council of Bishops will announce the results of this year2s voting at its Fall 2009 session. Unless otherwise stated, amendments become effective upon announcement.   In order to protect the Methodist Articles of Religion and the Evangelical United Brethren Confession of Faith, amendments to these must be approved by at least three-fourths of the voting members of the annual conferences.

April 29, 2009 Posted by imagebearer | Uncategorized, United Methodist Church | Leave a Comment

SPRING 2009 JUDICIAL COUNCIL SESSION AVOIDS CONTENTIOUS DECISIONS

The Judicial Council of The United Methodist Church, our denomination’s Supreme Court, met from April 22-24 in Denver, Colorado.  The Judicial Council issued eight opinions on April 24.  Four of the opinions are of particular interest to evangelicals. 
 
First, in Memorandum 1118, the Council ruled on a declaratory request from the Alaska Annual Conference, which invited the Council to overrule Decision 1032 and hold that the pastor of a local church has no discretion when an applicant states that he or she is ready to take the vows of professing membership.  The request asked whether paragraphs 214 (“all persons may . . . become members of any local church) and 225 (transfer of membership from another denomination) of the 2004 Book of Discipline are constitutional under paragraph 4 of the Constitution (“all persons without regard to race, color, national origin, status, or economic condition shall be eligible to . . . upon taking vows declaring the Christian faith, become professing members of any local church. . . .”).  In Decision 1032, the Judicial Council stated, “Paragraphs 214 and 225 are permissive and do not mandate receipt into membership of all persons regardless of their willingness to affirm membership vows.”  The Judicial Council further declared that the pastor-in-charge of a local church has the power to determine “a person’s readiness to receive the vows of membership.”
 
In Memorandum 1118, the Council held that it did not have jurisdiction to rule on the declaratory request from the Alaska Annual Conference because paragraph 2610.2(j) of the Discipline requires that a declaratory request from an annual conference must “relate to annual conferences or the work therein.”  The Council noted that a declaratory request from an annual conference “must be germane to the regular business, consideration, and discussion of the annual conference and must have a direct and tangible effect on the work of the annual conference session.”  The request “must relate to some action taken or to be taken by the annual conference session.”  Because these conditions were not satisfied by the Alaska Annual Conference in making its declaratory request, the Council held that it was without jurisdiction.
 
Proponents of eliminating pastoral discretion obviously hoped that the change in the membership of the Judicial Council in the current quadrennium would result in the Council overruling Decision 1032.  The declaratory request from the Alaska Annual Conference did not present a vehicle for them to achieve this goal.  The Judicial Council properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction.
 
The 2008 General Conference had an opportunity to reverse Decision 1032 legislatively by changing the disciplinary provisions on membership to negate the exercise of pastoral discretion, but it did not do so. 
 
A second matter before the Judicial Council involved a review of a decision of law rendered by Bishop Beverly Shamana.  The 2008 California-Nevada Annual Conference adopted a resolution, which commended retired clergy of the conference for their “compassion” in being willing to celebrate same-sex marriage or union ceremonies despite a prohibition in the Discipline, which forbids clergy from performing such ceremonies.  In response to a question of law, Bishop Shamana ruled that the resolution stepped over a disciplinary line, and was void and of no effect.  In her ruling, Shamana wrote, “While the resolution is a commendable gesture to the congregations of the conference in offering the pastoral counsel of a number of retired clergy to persons contemplating same-gender marriage under the laws of California, it steps over the disciplinary line when it commends these clergy to the congregations for the purpose of ‘performing same gender marriages or holy unions.” 
 
In Decision 1111, the Judicial Council affirmed Bishop Shamana’s decision of law stating that an “annual conference may not negate, ignore, or violate provisions of the Discipline with which they disagree, even when the disagreements are based on conscientious objections to the provisions.”  The Council said, “[A]n annual conference may not formally disseminate an official conference communication advising its local churches of the availability of clergy who are willing to officiate in ceremonies that celebrate same gender unions” since such an action is prohibited by paragraph 341.6 of the Discipline.
 
In a third matter, the Judicial Council reviewed a decision of law rendered by Bishop Mary Ann Swenson in the California-Pacific Annual Conference.  The 2008 California-Pacific Annual Conference adopted a resolution, which stated, “while we recognize that we are governed by the Book of Discipline . . . we support those pastors who conscientiously respond to the needs of their parishes by celebrating same-gender marriages, and we envision compassion and understanding in any resulting disciplinary actions.”  Bishop Swenson ruled that the resolution was permissible and stated, “The action called for in the resolution can be characterized as a pastoral response on the part of the annual conference . . . .  What the resolution does not call for is for pastors to violate the provisions of the Discipline governing the celebration of same-gender marriages.  In fact, the resolution is specific in acknowledging the authority of the Discipline . . . .  The resolution does not call for or encourage violation of the Discipline; it does provide for a response that is pastoral (compassionate) in nature.”
 
In Decision 1115, the Judicial Council affirmed the portion of Bishop Swenson’s decision of law, which ruled that clergy are subject to provisions of just resolution and fair process, but the Council reversed that portion of her decision of law, which ruled that the resolution was permissible.  The Council held that that portion of the resolution which expressed support for actions which would violate the Discipline was impermissible.  A concurring opinion by Jon Gray, joined in by Katherine Austin Mahle, stated, “Changes in church law can only be made by the General Conference and cannot be achieved through piecemeal resolutions adopted in an annual conference session.  A request for a bishop’s decision of law in an annual conference or for a declaratory decision from the Judicial Council are not effective ways to change the language of the Discipline.”  One concern raised by Bishop’s Swenson’s decision of law and the opinion in Decision 1115 is the continued unwillingness of some parts of our church to hold members of our church accountable when the Discipline is violated.  Language which calls for persons who violate the Discipline to be treated pastorally or compassionately in subsequent disciplinary proceedings has been used by some essentially to nullify the provisions of the Discipline and to fail to hold persons accountable in some circumstances.  Such a result when it happens weakens the covenant United Methodists share embodied in the Discipline.
 
Finally, in Decision 1113, the Judicial Council held that the Mission Council of the South Central Jurisdiction was properly vested with the authority to give its consent to enter into a lease agreement of Southern Methodist University (“SMU”) with the George W. Bush Presidential Library Foundation (the “Bush Foundation”).  The Mission Council’s action was reported to the 2008 session of the South Central Jurisdictional Conference.  The Judicial Council held that the Jurisdictional Conference ratified the action of the Mission Council at the 2008 session of the Jurisdictional Conference.  Because title to the property being leased to the Bush Foundation remains with SMU, the lease did not and could not violate the trust clause provisions of paragraph 2503.4 of the Discipline, the Judicial Council stated.
 
The opinions of the Judicial Council can be viewed in the Judicial Council section of the website of The United Methodist Church (www.umc.org).

April 29, 2009 Posted by imagebearer | Uncategorized, United Methodist Church | Leave a Comment

Youth invited to create logo for international fund

United Methodist youth are invited to design a new logo for the Youth Service Fund to replace this logo created in 1992 by Mark Jones, then a senior in high school. A UMNS image courtesy of the United Methodist Division on Ministries with Young People.

A UMNS Report
By Kathy L. Gilbert*
April 28, 2009

A team of United Methodists working in an office in Nashville is looking to youth for some divine inspiration.

United Methodist students, grades 6-12, are invited to design a new logo for the Youth Service Fund administered by The United Methodist Division on Ministries with Young People. The contest is open from May 1 to July 31.

The Youth Service Fund is a grant program funded by youth for youth service projects. In 2009, grants went to projects from Detroit to Kenya.

A good example of the type of projects that benefit from YSF is Immanuel Deaf Youth Outreach headquartered in Nairobi. This program run from within Immanuel Church brings the gospel of Jesus Christ to a deaf community of more than 3,000 youth. A group of United Methodist deaf youth members from the church started the program in 2004 because the majority of deaf youth do not attend any church services.

“I know there are talented young people out there; tons of you! I just want to encourage ANYBODY to enter a drawing,” said Sarah Smith, grants administrator for the division.

The current logo was designed in 1992 by Mark Jones, who was then a senior in high school. He used Matthew 10:16 as inspiration for his dove design. “The dove is a symbol of peace … what every Christian youth in the world hopes for. The chance for world peace is in the hands of today’s youth, and I know we can achieve it,” he said.

Inspiration can come from anywhere as long as it represents the global nature of the fund, Smith said.

“Many of the projects funded by Youth Service Fund would not have been possible without this funding source,” said the Rev. Michael Ratliff, top executive of the young people’s division. “In addition, because of the way this program is structured, even the application process is an opportunity for young people to grow in their relationship with one another and to clarify what it is they are trying to accomplish.”

All designs will be judged by a panel of young people. The winner will be announced on Aug. 10. The winner and a parent or guardian will get a trip to Nashville to meet with a professional designer who will help hone the art into a finished print and Web-ready logo.

“Young people today are interested in whether God exists,” said Hank Hilliard, manager of youth ministry development for the division. “But more than this, they are asking whether God matters. Young people aren’t as interested in talking about faith or discussing issues as they are about experiences and relationships.”

The fund gives young people around the world opportunities to change lives through service projects, Ratliff said.

“It will be exciting to see how a new logo provides the image that becomes a symbol for energizing the young people of The United Methodist Church to fund even more life-changing, world-changing projects,” he said.

“There seems to be a symbiotic relationship between giving ourselves away and finding who God is creating us to be. The opportunity to move beyond a very me-centered culture, to be other-focused, allows young people a unique perspective to discover their gifts, grow in their faith, refine their values, and shape their future.”

*Gilbert is a news writer for United Methodist News Service in Nashville, Tenn.

News media contact: Kathy L. Gilbert, Nashville, Tenn.,                (615…        or newsdesk@umcom.org

April 29, 2009 Posted by imagebearer | Uncategorized, United Methodist Church | 1 Comment

Council rejects resolutions on same-sex marriages

Council rejects resolutions on same-sex marriages

Bishop Beverly Shamana presides over The United Methodist Church’s California-Nevada Annual (regional) Conference in Sacramento, Calif. A UMNS file photo by Paul “Spud” Hilton.

By Neill Caldwell*
April 27, 2009 | DENVER (UMNS)

United Methodist clergy cannot perform same-sex marriages, even in states where such unions are legal or the ceremonies are endorsed by a regional church group.

The Judicial Council, the denomination’s top court, ruled at its spring meeting that it is a chargeable offense for United Methodist clergy to perform ceremonies celebrating same-sex unions.

The ruling overturned resolutions from two annual conferences supporting clergy who perform same-gender marriages.

In 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.

Council member Belton Joyner Jr. filed a dissenting opinion.

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.”

In a concurring opinion, Jon Gray and the Rev. Kathy Austin Mahle wrote “church law can only be made by the General Conference and cannot be achieved through piecemeal resolutions adopted in an annual conference session.”

The 2008 General Conference, the denomination’s top legislative body, voted to retain its ban on same-gender marriages and to bar clergy from performing such marriages or consecrating them in the church. Pastors who perform same-gender unions risk losing their clergy credentials.

In other decisions, the council approved the lease of Southern Methodist University property for the George W. Bush presidential library, museum and public policy institute and did not take up a request from the Alaska Conference for a ruling on church law regarding the openness of church membership relative to pastoral discretion to deny membership.

The council said the lease agreement between United Methodist-related SMU and the George W. Bush Foundation does not violate church law.

Critics opposed to many policies of the Bush administration, including the war in Iraq, argued placing the institute on SMU property would be inconsistent with church teaching.

In its own review, the nine-member council said it found nothing in the lease agreement that violated the school’s Articles of Incorporation or the church’s Book of Discipline.

In the membership case, the council said it did not have jurisdiction to address possible competing claims in church rules because the request for a declaratory decision did not deal with an action by the Alaska Conference.

The case refers back to an earlier council ruling in favor of the right of a Virginia pastor, the Rev. Ed Johnson, to block a practicing homosexual from joining the congregation of South Hill (Va.) United Methodist Church. The council ruled the pastor of a local church has authority to determine a layperson’s readiness for membership.

The council also said it did not have jurisdiction to rule on a request from the West Ohio Annual Conference on the formula for deciding the number of bishops in a region. The 2008 General Conference approved a plan that will result in one less bishop in four of the five U.S. jurisdictions beginning in 2012.

*Caldwell is editor of the Virginia United Methodist Advocate and covers the Judicial Council for United Methodist News Service.

News media contact: David Briggs, Nashville, Tenn.,                (615) 7…        or newsdesk@umcom.org.

April 27, 2009 Posted by imagebearer | Uncategorized, United Methodist Church | 1 Comment

Issues for Annual Conference of The UMC

Interesting information for those attending Annual Conference in June @ Lake Junaluska. Please be in prayer for Our United Methodist Church and take action when possible. Please be familiar with the issues and vote the way you are convicted.

Amendments o be voted on @ Annual Conferences.

Ronnie

April 27, 2009 Posted by imagebearer | Uncategorized, United Methodist Church | 1 Comment

Two Wheel Revolution

Desperate times call for desperate measures.

April 21, 2009 Posted by imagebearer | Uncategorized, United Methodist Church | Leave a Comment

Make a difference in your own backyard

April 20, 2009 Posted by imagebearer | Uncategorized, United Methodist Church | Leave a Comment

Methodist Amendments – Maxie Dunnam

Interesting information for those attending Annual Conference in June @ Lake Junaluska. Please be in prayer for Our United Methodist Church and take action when possible.

Ronnie

April 16, 2009 Posted by imagebearer | Uncategorized, United Methodist Church | Leave a Comment

United Methodist commitment to higher education

Soaring – Bishop’s Blog

From Bishop Swanson

October 29, 2008 Posted by imagebearer | Uncategorized, United Methodist Church | Leave a Comment

“I Waked Under Water”

October 29, 2008 Posted by imagebearer | Uncategorized, United Methodist Church | Leave a Comment

Wesley Talks to the Indians

October 29, 2008 Posted by imagebearer | Uncategorized, United Methodist Church | Leave a Comment

60 Minute Meal

During your 60 minute lunch today the following took place in The United States.

78 People died from heart disease

64 People died from cancer

50 People died from tobacco use

42 People died from poor diet or physical inactivity

10 People died from alcohol use

2 People died from illicit sexual behavior

2 People died from illicit drug use

October 28, 2008 Posted by imagebearer | Uncategorized, United Methodist Church | Leave a Comment

Wesley begins His Ministry at Savannah

October 28, 2008 Posted by imagebearer | Uncategorized, United Methodist Church | Leave a Comment

Wesley Sails for America

October 24, 2008 Posted by imagebearer | Uncategorized, United Methodist Church | Leave a Comment

The Journal of John Wesley

October 22, 2008 Posted by imagebearer | Uncategorized, United Methodist Church | Leave a Comment

Wesley’s Humor

Wesley’s Humor

“On Thursday, May 20 (1742), I set out. The next afternoon I stopped a little at Newport Pagnell and then rode on till I over took a serious man with whom I immediately fell into conversation. He presently gave me to know what his opinions were, therefore I said nothing to contradict them. But that did not content him. He was quite uneasy to know ‘whether I held the doctrines of the decrees as he did’; but I told him over and over ‘We had better keep to practical things lest we should be angry at one another.’ And so we did for two miles till he caught me unawares and dragged me into the dispute before I knew where I was. He then grew warmer and warmer; told me I was rotten at heart and supposed I was one of John Wesley’s followers. I told him ‘No. I am John Wesley himself.’ Upon which

Improvisum aspris Veluti qui sentibus

anguem Presset—

he would gladly have run away outright. But being the better mounted of the two I kept close to his side and endeavored to show him his heart till we came into the street of Northampton.”

What a picture have we here of a fine May morning in 1742, the unhappy Calvinist trying to shake off the Arminian Wesley! But he cannot do it! John Wesley is the better mounted of the two, and so they scamper together into Northampton.

The England described in the Journal is an England still full of theology; all kinds of queer folk abound; strange subjects are discussed in odd places. There was drunkenness and cockfighting, no doubt, but there were also Deists, Mystics, Swedenborgians, Antiomians, Necessitarians, Anabaptists, Quakers, nascent heresies, and slow-dying delusions. Villages were divided into rival groups, which fiercely argued the nicest points in the aptest language. Nowadays in one’s rambles a man is as likely to encounter a grey badger as a black Calvinist.

England in Wesley’s Day

The clergy of the Established Church were jealous of Wesley’s interference in their parishes, nor was this unnatural—he was not a Nonconformist but a brother churchman.  What right had he to be so peripatetic? But Wesley seldom records any instance of gross clerical misconduct. Of one drunken parson he does indeed tell us, and he speaks disapprovingly of another whom he found one very hot day consuming a pot of beer in a lone ale-house.

When Wesley, with that dauntless courage of his, a courage which never forsook him, which he wore on every occasion with the delightful ease of a soldier, pushed his way into fierce districts, amid rough miners dwelling their own village communities almost outside the law, what most strikes one with admiration, not less in Wesley’s Journal than in George Fox’s (a kindred though earlier volume), is the essential fitness for freedom of our rudest populations. They were coarse and brutal and savage, but rarely did they fail to recognize the high character and lofty motives of the dignified mortal who had traveled so far to speak to them.

The Mobs He Met

Wesley was occasionally hustled, and once or twice pelted with mud and stones, but at no time were his sufferings at the hands of the mob to be compared with the indignities it was long the fashion to heap upon the heads of parliamentary candidates. The mob knew and appreciated the difference between a Bubb Dodington and a John Wesley.

I do not think any ordinary Englishman will be much horrified at the demeanor of the populace. If there was a disturbance it was usually quelled. At Norwich two soldiers who disturbed a congregation were seized and carried before their commanding officer, who ordered them to be soundly whipped. In Wesley’s opinion they richly deserved all they got. He was no sentimentalist, although an enthusiast.

Where the reader of the Journal will be shocked is when his attention is called to the public side of the country—to the state of the gaols—to Newgate, to Bethlehem, to the criminal code—to the brutality of so many of the judges, and the harshness of the magistrates, to the supineness of the bishops, to the extinction in high places of the missionary spirit—in short, to the heavy slumber of humanity.

Wesley was full of compassion, of a compassion wholly free from hysterics and like exaltative. In public affairs his was the composed zeal of a Howard. His efforts to penetrate the dark places were long in vain. He says in his dry way: “They won’t let me go to Bedlam because they say I make the inmates mad, or into Newgate because I make them wicked.” The reader of the Journal will be at no loss to see what these sapient magistrates meant.

Wesley was a terriby exciting preacher, quiet though his manner was. He pushed matters home without flinching. He made people cry out and fall down, nor did it surprise him that they should.

*               *                   *                     *

Ever a Preacher

If you want to get into the last century, to feel its pulses throb beneath your finger, be content sometimes to leave the letters of Horace Walpole unturned, resist the drowsy temptation to waste your time over the learned triflers who sleep in the seventeen volumes of Nichols, nay even deny yourself your annual reading of Boswell or your biennial retreat with Sterne, and ride up and down the country with the greatest force of the eighteenth century in England.

No man lived nearer the center than John Wesley.  Neither Clive nor Pitt, neither Mansfield nor Johnson. You cannot cut him out of our national life. No single figure influenced so many minds, no single voice touched so many hearts. No other man did such a life’s work for England.

As a writer he has not achieved distinction, he was no Athanasius, no Augustine, he was ever a preacher and an organizer, a laborer in the service of humanity; but happily for us his Journals remain, and from them we can learn better than from anywhere else what manner of man he was, and the character of the times during which he lived and moved and had his being.                

augustine birrell

October 20, 2008 Posted by imagebearer | Uncategorized, United Methodist Church | Leave a Comment

Commentary: John Wesley’s advice on the economy

Commentary: John Wesley‘s advice on the economy

Oct. 16, 2008    

NOTE: A photograph and illustration are available at http://umns.umc.org.

A UMNS Commentary
By J. Richard Peck*

The year was 1772 as John Wesley addressed a letter to the editor of Lloyd’s Evening Post regarding the causes of and cures for high unemployment, food shortages and dismal economic conditions.

More than two centuries later, the United States is struggling with a meltdown on Wall Street, skyrocketing gas prices and inadequate health care. But our diminished economy would scarcely rival that of England in 1772.

Wesley, who was 69 at the time, starts by asking why. “Why are thousands of people starving–perishing for want, in every part of England?”

The founder of the Methodist movement then describes the London situation: “I have known those who could only afford to eat a little coarse food every other day. I have known one picking up stinking sprats from a dunghill, and carrying them home for herself and her children. I have known another gathering the bones, which the dogs had left in the streets, and making broth of them, to prolong a wretched life.”

Examining the causes

Wesley blamed several English practices for the impoverished state of the nation:

1.      The wasteful use of grain to produce alcohol. “Have we not reason to believe that half of the wheat produced in the kingdom is every year consumed, not by so harmless a way as throwing it into the sea, but by converting it into deadly poison-poison that naturally destroys, not only the strength and life, but also the morals of our countrymen.”

2.      Wealthy people who need horses for sport, pleasure and export. “Most of the considerable farmers, particularly in the northern counties, who used to breed large numbers of sheep or horned cattle, and frequently both, no longer trouble themselves with either sheep, or cows, or oxen; as they can turn their land to far better account, by breeding horses alone. Such is the demand, not only for coach and chaise horses, which are bought and destroyed in incredible numbers; but much more for bred horses, which are yearly exported by hundreds, yea thousands, to France.”

3.      Unproductive large farms had replaced small family farms, causing a shortage of poultry, pork and eggs. “Every one of these little farmers kept a few swine, with some quantity of poultry; and, having little money, was glad to send his bacon, or pork, or fowls and eggs, to market continually. Hence, the markets were plentifully served, and plenty created cheapness; but, at present, the great, the gentlemen farmers, are above attending to these little things. They breed no poultry or swine, unless for their own use; consequently they send none to market.”

4.      High taxes. “Enormous taxes are laid on almost everything that can be named. Not only abundant taxes are raised from earth, and fire, and water; but, in England, the ingenious statesmen have found a way to tax light. Only one element–air– remains, and surely some man of honor will contrive to tax this also. For how long shall the saucy air blow in the face of a gentleman, nay, a lord, without paying for it?”

5.      The national debt. “Taxes are high because of the national debt. I have heard that the national expense, in the time of peace, was, sixty years ago, three million a year. Now the bare interest of the public debt amounts to above four million. To raise which, with the other expenses of government, those taxes are absolutely necessary.”

Identifying cures

John Wesley believed that most of the economic problems of the day were caused by a growing disparity between the rich and the poor.

Wesley felt the cure was to repress “luxury, either by example, by laws, or both.”  He asked legislators to establish laws that would prohibit the distillation of alcohol. While he lamented high taxes upon the poor and middle class, he called for additional taxes on luxury items such as horses and carriages. He suggested people be taxed on what they purchased rather than upon what they earned.

He also expressed concern about future generations and called for a reduction of the national debt.

In short, Wesley called for higher taxes upon the wealthy and laws that would prohibit the wasting of natural products.

While Wesley did not tell the readers of Lloyd’s Evening Post about his personal actions, he organized groups of Methodists to visit the London workhouses where poor people were housed and employed. The groups also provided worship services for the inmates, most of whom were children and elderly persons.

Lessons learned

Contemporary application of Wesley’s advice would suggest that the U.S. Congress should reduce taxes on the poor and middle class, add taxes to luxury items, eliminate taxes upon necessities, introduce laws that govern the use of natural resources, and take steps to reduce the $10 trillion national debt-a debt that has increased by 71.9 percent over the last eight years.

A record 28 million Americans are now receiving food stamps.

While he did not write about his personal actions, John Wesley’s life serves as an example to United Methodists about our personal obligation to care for poor and vulnerable persons through a variety of means.

Using his own life as an example, Wesley also would suggest less reliance upon pharmaceuticals. While he experimented with alternative health practices, he rose each morning at 4 o’clock and relied heavily on an active life style. He lived to age 88.

*Peck is a retired clergy member of the New York Annual Conference and the communications director of the Commission on United Methodist Men.

News media contact: Marta Aldrich, Nashville, Tenn., (615) 742-5470 or newsdesk@umcom.org.

********************

United Methodist News Service
Photos and stories also available at:
http://umns.umc.org

October 19, 2008 Posted by imagebearer | Uncategorized, United Methodist Church | Leave a Comment

Wesley’s Family Stock

Wesley’s Family Stock

John Wesley came of a stock which had been much harrassed and put about by our unhappy religious difficulties.  Politics, business, and religion are the three things Englishmen are said to worry themselves about. The Wesleys early took up with religion. John Wesley’s great-grandfather and grandfather were both ejected from their livings in 1662, and the grandfather was so bullied and oppressed by the Five Mile act that he early gave up the ghost. Whereupon his remains were refused what is called Christian burial, though a holier and more primitive man never drew breath. This poor, persecuted spirit left two sons according to the flesh, Matthew and Samuel; and Samuel it was who in his turn became the father of John and Charles Wesley.

Samuel Wesley, though minded to share the lot hard though that lot was, of his progenitors, had the moderation of mind, the Christian conservatism which ever marked the family, and being sent to a dissenting college, became disgusted with the ferocity and bigotry he happened there to encounter. Those were the days of the Calf’s Head Club and feastings on the twenty-ninth of January, graceless meals for which Samuel Wesley had no stomach. His turn was for the things that are “quiet, wise, and good.” He departed from the dissenting seminary and in 1685 entered himself as a poor scholar at Exeter College, Oxford. He brought f 2 6s. with him, and as for prospects, he had none. Exeter received him.

During the eighteenth century our two universities, famous despite their faults, were always open to the poor scholar who was ready to subscribe, not to boat clubs or cricket clubs, but to the Thirty-nine Articles. Three archbishops of Canterbury during the eighteenth century were the sons of small tradesmen.  There was, in fact, much less snobbery and money-worship during the century when the British empire was being won than during the century when it is being talked about.

Samuel Wesley was allowed to remain at Oxford, where he supported himself by devices known to his tribe, and when he left the university to be ordained he had clear in his pouch,  after discharging his few debts, f 10 15s. He had thus made f 8 9s. out of his university, and had his education, as it were, thrown in for nothing. He soon obtained a curacy in London and married a daughter of the well-known ejected clergyman, Dr. Annesley, about whom you may read in another eighteenth-century book, The Life and Errors of John Dunton.

Wesley’s Mother

The mother of the Wesleys was a remarkable woman, though cast in a mold not much to our minds nowadays. She had nineteen children and greatly prided herself on having taught them, one after another, by frequent chastisements to—what do you think? to cry softly. She had theories of education and strength of will, and of arm too, to carry them out.

She knew Latin and Greek, and though a stern, forbidding, almost an unfeeling, parent, she was successful in winning and retaining not only the respect but the affection of such of her huge family as lived to grow up. But out of the nineteen, thirteen early succumbed. Infant mortality was one of the great facts of the eighteenth century whose Rachels had to learn to cry softly over their dead babes. The mother of the Wesleys thought more of her children’s souls than of their bodies.

A Domestic Squall

The revolution of 1688 threatened to disturb the early married life of Samuel Wesley and his spouse. 

The husband wrote a pamphlet in which he defended revolution principles, but the wife secretly adhered to the old cause; nor was it until a year before Dutch William’s death that the rector made the discovery that the wife of his bosom, who had sworn to obey him and regard him as her over-lord, was not in the habit of saying Amen to his fervent prayers on behalf of his suffering sovereign. An explanation was demanded and the truth extracted, namely, that in the opinion of the rector’s wife her true king lived over the water. The rector at once refused to live with Mrs. Wesley any longer until she recanted. This she refused to do, and for a twelvemonth the couple dwelt apart, when William III having the good sense to die, a reconciliation became possible. If John Wesley was occasionally a little pig-headed, need one wonder?

The story of the fire at Epworth Rectory and the miraculous escape of the infant John was once a tale as well known as Alfred in the neat-herd’s hut, and pictures of it still hang up in many a collier’s home.

John Wesley received a sound classical education at Charterhouse and Christ Church, and remained all his life very much the scholar and the gentleman. No company was too good for John Wesley, and nobody knew better than he did that had he cared to carry his powerful intelligence, his flawless constitution, and his infinite capacity for taking pains into any of the markets of the world, he must have earned for himself place, fame, and fortune.

Coming, however, as he did of a theological stock, having a saint for a father and a notable devout woman for a mother, Wesley from his early days learned to regard religion as the business of his life, just as the young Pitt came to regard the House of Commons as the future theater of his actions.

“My Jack is Fellow of Lincoln”

After a good deal of heart-searching and theological talk with his mother, Wesley was ordained a deacon by the excellent Potter, afterward Primate, but then (1725) Bishop of Oxford. In the following year Wesley was elected a Fellow of Lincoln, to the great delight of his father. “Whatever I am,” said the good old man, “my Jack is Fellow of Lincoln.”

*               *                   *                     *

Wesley’s motive never eludes us. In his early manhood, after being greatly affected by Jeremy Taylor’s Holy Living and Dying and the Imitatio Christi, and by Law’s Serious Call and Christian Perfection, he met “a serious man” who said to him, “Sir, you wish to serve God and go to heaven. Remember you cannot serve Him alone. You must therefore find companions or make them. The Bible knows nothing of solitary religion.”

He was very confident, this serious man, and Wesley never forgot his message. “You must find companions or make them. The Bible knows nothing of solitary religion.” These words forever sounded in Wesley’s ears, determining his theology, which rejected the stern individualism of Calvin, and fashioning his whole polity, his famous class meetings and generally gregarious methods.

Therefore to him it was given

Many to save with himself.

We may continue the quotation and apply to Wesley the words of Mr. Arnold’s memorial to his father:

Languor was not in his heart, 

Weakness not in his word,

    Weariness not on his brow.

If you ask what is the impression left upon the reader of the Journal as to the condition of England Question, the answer will vary very much with the tenderness of the reader’s conscience and with the extent of his acquaintance with the general behavior of mankind at all times and in all places.

No Sentimentalist

Wesley himself is no alarmist, no sentimentalist, he never gushes, seldom exaggerates, and always writes on an easy level. Naturally enough he clings to the supernatural and is always disposed to believe in the bona fides of ghosts and the diabolical origin of strange noises, but outside this realm of speculation, Wesley describes things as he saw them. In the first published words of his friend, Dr. Johnson, “he meets with no basilisks that destroy with their eyes, his crocodiles devour their prey without tears, and his cataracts fall from the rocks without deafening the neighbouring inhabitants.”

Wesley’s humor is of the species donnish, and his modes and methods quietly persistent.

October 19, 2008 Posted by imagebearer | Uncategorized, United Methodist Church | Leave a Comment

AN APPRECIATION OF JOHN WESLEY’S JOURNAL

AN APPRECIATION OF JOHN WESLEY’S JOURNAL

by augustine birrell, king’s counsel

JOHN WESLEY, born as he was in 1703 and dying as he did in 1791, covers as nearly as mortal man may, the whole of the eighteenth century, of which he was one of the most typical and certainly the most strenuous figures.

He began his published Journal on October 14, 1735, and its last entry is under date Sunday, October 24, 1790, when in the morning he explained to a numerous congregation in Spitalfields Church “The Whole Armor of God,” and in the afternoon enforced to a still larger audience in St. Paul’s, Shadwell, the great truth, “One thing is needful,” the last words of the Journal being “I hope many even then resolved to choose the better part.”

Between those two Octobers there lies the most amazing record of human exertion ever penned or endured.

I do not know whether I am likely to have among my readers anyone who has ever contested an English or Scottish county in a parliamentary election since household suffrage. If I have, that tired soul will know how severe is the strain of its three weeks, and how impossible it seemed at the end of the first week that you should be able to keep it going for another fortnight, and how when the last night arrived you felt that had the strife been accidentally prolonged another seven days you must have perished by the wayside.

Contesting the Three Kingdoms

Well, John Wesley contested the three kingdoms in the cause of Christ during a campaign which lasted forty years.

He did it for the most part on horseback. He paid more turnpikes than any man who ever bestrode a beast. Eight thousand miles was his annual record for many a long year, during each of which he seldom preached less frequently than one thousand times. Had he but preserved his scores at all the inns where he lodged, they would have made by themselves a history of prices.  And throughout it all he never knew what depression of spirits meant—though he had much to try him, suits in chancery and a jealous wife.

In the course of this unparalleled contest Wesley visited again and again the most out-of-the-way districts—the remotest corners of England—places which today lie far removed even from the searcher after the picturesque.

Today, when the map of England looks like a gridiron of railways, none but the sturdiest of pedestrians, the most determined of cyclists can retrace the steps of Wesley and his horse, and stand by the rocks and the natural amphitheaters in Cornwall and Northumberland, in Lancashire and Berkshire, where he preached his gospel to the heathen.

REV. JOHN WESLEY

Grandfather of John Wesley

October 18, 2008 Posted by imagebearer | Uncategorized, United Methodist Church | Leave a Comment

Introduction to John Wesley

INTRODUCTION

by the rev. hugh price hughes, m.a.

He who desires to understand the real history of the English people during the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries should read most carefully three books: George Fox’s Journal, John Wesley’s Journal, and John Henry Newman’s Apologia pro Vita Sua.

As Lord Hugh Cecil has recently said in a memorable speech, the religious question cannot be ignored. It is the question; in the deepest sense it is the only question.  It has always determined the course of history everywhere. In all ages the skeptical literary class has tried to ignore it, as the Roman historians, poets, and philosophers ignored Christianity until the time when Christianity became triumphant and dominant throughout the Roman Empire.

But, however much ignored or boycotted by literary men, the growth or decline of religion ultimately settles everything. Has not Carlyle said that George Fox making his own clothes is the most remarkable event in our history? George Fox was the very incarnation of that individualism which has played, and will yet play, so great a part in the making of modern England. If you want to understand “the dissidence of Dissent and the Protestantism of the Protestant religion,” read the Journal of George Fox.

 Then came John Wesley and his “helpers.” They were the first preachers since the days of the Franciscan Friars in the Middle Ages who ever reached the working classes. In England, as in France, Germany, and everywhere else, the Reformation was essentially a middle-class movement. It never captured either the upper classes or the working classes. That explains its limitations.

As Dr. Rigg has shown, Wesley’s itineraries were deliberately planned to bring him into direct contact neither with the aristocracy nor with the dependent or poverty-stricken poor, but with the industrious self-supporting workmen in town and country. The ultimate result was that “the man in the street” became Methodist in his conception of Christianity, whatever his personal conduct and character might be. A profound French critic said, fifty years ago, that modern England was Methodist, and the remark applies equally to the United States and to our colonies.  The doctrines of the Evangelical Revival permeated the English-speaking world.

Then Newman appeared on the scene and a tremendous change began. The Anglican Church revived, and revived in Newman’s direction. We witness today on every side the vast results of the Newman era. Many of these results are beneficial in the extreme; others cannot be welcome to those who belong to the schools of George Fox and John Wesley.

The whole future of the British Empire depends upon this question of questions—Will George Fox and John Wesley on the one hand, or John Henry Newman on the other, ultimately prevail?  And the best way to arrive at the true inwardness of the issue is to read, ponder, and inwardly digest Wesley’s Journal and Newman’s Apologia.

It is a great advantage that Mr. Parker has secured permission to republish Mr. Augustine Birrell’s “Appreciation.” That brilliant writer demonstrates that there is no book in existence that gives you so exact and vivid a description of the eighteenth century in England as Wesley’s Journal. It is an incalculably more varied and complete account of the condition of the people of England than Boswell’s Johnston. As Mr. Birrell says, Wesley was himself “the greatest force of the eighteenth century in England. No man lived nearer the center than John Wesley. Neither Clive nor Pitt, neither Mansfield nor Johnson. No single figure influenced so many minds, no single voice touched so many hearts. No other man did such a life’s work for England.” Wesley has demonstrated that a true prophet of God has more influence than all the politicians and soldiers and millionaires put together. He is the incalculable and unexpected element that is always putting all the devices of the clever to naught.

I do not understand what Mr. Birrell means by saying that “as a writer Wesley has not achieved distinction. He was no Athanasius, no Augustine; he was ever a preacher.” It is true that Wesley’s main business was not to define metaphysical theology, but to cultivate friendly relations with Christians of all schools, and to save living men from sin. But he gave a deathblow to the destructive dogma of limited salvation with which the names of Augustine and Calvin will be forever associated.

No doubt, like Oliver Cromwell, Wesley was essentially a “man of action,” and he deliberately sacrificed the niceties of literary taste to the greater task of making Englishmen on both sides of the Atlantic real Christians. Even so, the style of some of his more literary productions is a model of lucidity and grace.

But my main point here is to echo Mr. Birrell’s final statement, that “we can learn better from Wesley’s Journal than from anywhere else what manner of man Wesley was, and the character of the times during which he lived and moved and had his being.” My co-religionists and all who love the most characteristic qualities of modern English life are under a deep debt of obligation to my friend Mr. Parker and His publishers for giving them an opportunity of studying the eventful eighteenth century of English history at its center and fountainhead.

The fact that this edition of the work has been condensed is no drawback. The Journal, as originally published, was itself condensed by Wesley….For popular purposes Mr. Parker’s edition will answer all important ends, and will give English readers for the first time an opportunity of reading in a handy form one of the most important, instructive, and entertaining books ever published in the English language.

Of course Mr. Parker alone is responsible for the selection of the portions of the Journal which appear in this volume.

HUGH PRICE HUGHES

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/wesley/journal.iii.html

October 17, 2008 Posted by imagebearer | Uncategorized, United Methodist Church | Leave a Comment

Intro to John Wesley’s Journal

When john wesley prepared his Journal for publication he prefaced it with the following account of its origin:

“It was in pursuance of an advice given by Bishop Taylor, in his Rules for Holy Living and Dying, that, about fifteen years ago, I began to take a more exact account than I had done before, of the manner wherein I spent my time, writing down how I had employed every hour.

“This I continued to do, wherever I was, till the time of my leaving England for Georgia. The variety of scenes which I then passed through induced me to transcribe, from time to time, the more material parts of my diary, adding here and there such little reflections as occurred to my mind.

“Of this Journal thus occasionally compiled, the following is a short extract: it not being my design to relate all those particulars which I wrote for my own use only, and which would answer no valuable end to others, however important they were to me.”

Ronnie

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/wesley/journal.ii.html

October 16, 2008 Posted by imagebearer | Uncategorized, United Methodist Church | Leave a Comment

Watch it and NEVER be the same again!

October 8, 2008 Posted by imagebearer | Uncategorized, United Methodist Church | Leave a Comment