Author: admin Page 1 of 8

Organized Religion

On October 26, 2021

Organized Religion

“I just don’t believe in organized religion.” I have heard that statement dozens of times. My wife quipped, “So you believe in unorganized religion?”

It is no wonder that people would be disillusioned with various expressions of the church, especially with the scandals of so many high-profile Christian leaders of late.

However, many people who decry organized religion want organization in every other area of their lives. They expect organization from their employers, their banks, and even their sports teams. As a matter of fact, all human beings crave organization.

In scripture, it seems that Jesus anticipated the church’s organization. After all, he chose twelve disciples, which symbolized a renewed faithful remnant of Israel.[1] As God designated the twelve tribes, so Jesus reconstituted them. After Jesus’ resurrection and ascension, the Apostles sought to continue the tradition of Jesus to select someone to take Judas’ place after his betrayal and suicide (Acts 1.15ff).

One scene early in Acts points to the benefit of organized religion – effective ministry. In Acts 6, a dispute developed between the Palestinian Jews and the Greek-speaking Jews concerning the daily distribution of food for the widows. The dispute was settled by organizing a group of people to oversee the matter so the apostles could continue their teaching ministry. Without this organization, many widows would not have received the food they needed.

This kind of organization has enabled many benefits throughout church history. For example, organized religion gave us various charities, Bibles in many languages, trained leaders, and universities. In addition, organized religion has enabled recovery ministries like Alcoholics Anonymous, Sunday School materials, hospitality, hospitals, the abolition of slavery in Europe and the United States, and literacy training.

So, what is the real problem with organized religion? The first is sin. Where there are people, there is the possibility that people will misbehave. But that is true of any organization. In the church, people can give into the lure of power and prestige and use their positions for personal gain or glory. Even a cursory glance at the gospels will reveal that is not the kind of organization Jesus had in mind. For example, Jesus said:

“You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. ⁴³ But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, ⁴⁴ and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. ⁴⁵ For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Mark 10:42b–45, ESV)

Second is the western ideal of individuality – we don’t want to be accountable to anyone. Since the beginning of time, we have wanted to make our own choices and rail against anyone suggesting that there might be a standard of proper behavior. Organized religion poses a threat to those who want complete autonomy in their lives. Some bristle against any message that calls any of their behaviors or attitudes into question.

Thirdly, is our desire to make God in our image. Organized religion, by which I mean the tradition of the church, reminds us that there are proper ways to think about God and relate to God. To some, organized religion is seen to dictate what a person should believe.

However, if we accept the Bible as the authoritative source from which we learn who God is and what God expects of us, then there is a standard by which all ideas, behaviors, and relationships are judged.

I have known of people who defined God in such a way as to excuse or allow any of their behaviors and attitudes. They have constructed a god who agrees with them in every way. In that way, they have followed the example of the Israelites in the wilderness:

⁴ And [Aaron] received the gold from their hand and fashioned it with a graving tool and made a golden calf. And they said, “These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!” ⁵ When Aaron saw this, he built an altar before it. And Aaron made a proclamation and said, “Tomorrow shall be a feast to the Lord.”(Exodus 32:4–5, ESV)

Now, the Lord was reduced to an idol under their control and was made to look some a familiar Egyptian god. All of this happened while Moses was on the mountain receiving the Ten Commandments from the real Lord of the Exodus.

In sum, the reason many detest organized religion is self-centeredness; we want to be the center of the universe and not submit to any outside authority outside. The problem with that notion is that we are all wrong about many things in the world. I may be wrong about a great deal when it comes to God and the life God expects of me. Thankfully, I have the Scriptures, the Church community, and 2,000 years of Church history to correct my wrong notions. If I am humble enough to submit to God and God’s means of grace and instruction, I can learn and live a better life.

Organized religion has often allowed sinful people to do hurtful things, but so have many other organizations. Given the fallenness of humanity and our own participation in that fallenness, we can be grateful for the gifts of the organized church while at the same time pushing toward reform.

[1] E. J. Schnabel, “Apostle,” ed. Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, Second Edition (Downers Grove, IL; Nottingham, England: IVP Academic; IVP, 2013), 43.

Intercessory Prayer

By admin

On April 3, 2019

In Uncategorized

After each stanza of this prayer, lift up the names of people you know who need prayer for the situation you mentioned.

God of love hear the cry of those who yearn for love;
fractured families, broken homes neglected, unwanted, alone.

God of justice hear the cry of those who yearn for justice;
persecuted and oppressed, exploited, ill-treated, broken.

God of peace hear the cry of those who yearn for peace;
in battle zones and broken states, frightened, fearful, anxious

God of healing hear the cry of those who yearn for healing;
physical and spiritual hurting, weakened, depressed

God of mercy hear the cry of those who yearn for mercy;
convicted, in need of your Grace, contrite, humble, bowed down,

May all these know
The peace of God
The love of God
The justice of God
The healing and mercy of God
This day and all days
Amen

https://re-worship.blogspot.com/2012/02/lent-intercessions.html

General Conference – Final Day

By admin

On February 26, 2019

In General Conference, United Methodist Church

The General Conference (GC) met in a plenary session today to take action on the work of the legislative committee of a whole from yesterday.

The short story is that the body passed the timeline for Central Conferences for the implementation of the decisions made and the petitions submitted by Wespath Benefits (the retirement group for UMs) concerning ministerial pensions.

We heard a report from the Judicial Council on the constitutionality of the petitions passed in yesterday’s legislative session. It was a mixed bag, and several provisions of the Traditional Plan were deemed unconstitutional. These will need to be adjusted.

The One Church Plan (OCP) was presented as a minority report, and a motion was made to substitute this plan as the primary plan, which was defeated.

The Traditional Plan was finally discussed and passed after a lengthy debate and amendment process.

The biggest takeaway for me was the spirit that prevailed in the GC. This is the first General Conference I have observed, and I come away with a very heavy heart.

Once the debate started today in earnest, progressives and centrists (supporter of the OCP) criticized traditionalists of being mean-spirited and lacking in love. From what I witnessed I didn’t understand this accusation. A delegate from the Oklahoma conference mentioned similar experiences.

I can’t speak to everything, I didn’t hear the speeches the foreign delegates who spoke in their native language, I understand the live-stream audience heard the translation. I also do not know what was said in some Twitter threads or Facebook feeds.

Many OCP supporters were sitting in my area, and they openly cheered and booed and shouted at various times signaling their relative mood. It was kind of like experiencing a live and in-person Facebook thread filled with rants and negative emojis.

At this point, I felt physically ill and left the conference. I hold to a traditional view of Scripture and do my best to live in that manner, I don’t consider that to be mean or unloving, but in the eyes of some, I am. Why is it when I voice my convictions I am branded as mean, but when those who disagree with me do the same, they are merely stating their opinion. I confess I don’t understand.

Many people who support the OCP or other similar plans wore rainbow stoles, and many wore buttons touting the OPC along with another button which had the word Schism on it in a circle with a red line through it. No doubt this was to criticize the Wesleyan Covenant Association which had begun working on a contingency plan for withdrawing in the OCP passed.

It was amazing to me, that those who supported the OPC talked of leaving the UMC if the Traditional plan passed. That seems a little hypocritical to me. Even two centrist pastors of very large churches (one a retired pastor) mentioned they would lead their church in that direction.

Right now, my emotions are all over the map, I am sad, disgusted, angry and hurt and what transpired today. I am sure that many who witnessed the events online experienced some of the same emotions. Maybe this is just what happens in large organizations when important issues are discussed, I just never saw how the sausage was made before – don’t think I want to again.

I want to commend our Alabama – West Florida delegation for the work they did. I could leave when things turned ugly, they could not. They will be in my prayers as they try to decompress after this conference.

General Conference – Day 3

By admin

On February 25, 2019

In General Conference, Uncategorized

In today’s session, we dove into the details of the Traditional Plan, two petitions for disaffiliation and the One Church Plan.

It was disheartening to read a statement report in the United Methodist News service by Bishop Karen Oliveto. Bishop Oliveto, “who leads the Mountain Sky Conference and is the denomination’s first openly gay bishop, spoke to a gathering of LGBTQ saying “We are going to bring our love, our connection, our spirit, our joy because the church would die without us. Your life has meaning, your love inspires me, I keep going because you keep going” (UMNS Feb. 25, 2019, emphasis mine.) In my humble opinion, the vitality and life of the church are dependent on Jesus, the Lord of the Church, and not on any individual or group of individuals.

An attempt to postpone action on the Traditional plan failed, and the plan was debated and passed through the Legislative committee. An effort to reprioritize and delay discussion of the Traditional Plan (TP). The motion failed.

Several objections were raised which claimed that the Traditional plan was “not loving,” and “not of God.” These two objections, and others, claim to know what God wants apart from the Scripture. It is incredible that when traditionalists use arguments like this, they are criticized by progressives.

The assumption that the only loving thing is to allow a person to do whatever that person wants to do, but this is not the case. The word “no” is a loving response in many situations. I am reminded of the story of Jesus and the rich young ruler (Mark 10:17-22). Sometimes the most loving thing you can tell a person is, no.

On a similar note, the word “harm” has been used extensively in these discussions. The notion that because certain people are not granted privileges, they have been harmed in some way is a typical charge against those who hold to more conservative viewpoints. Disagreement and a lack of endorsement are not harm. Harm is defined as physical or mental damage in the 11th edition of Webster’s Dictionary. John Wesley’s rules for his Societies were to Do no harm, do good and attend upon all the ordinances of God. Wesley had specific things in mind when he said: “do no harm” (see the full rule here). To disagree with a person or tell a person they are not eligible for a specific privilege is not doing harm.

I was disappointed that it seemed that proponents of the TP were unable to distribute supplemental materials. If, as Maxie Dunham stated, he was not allowed to present the additional materials until it was offered on the floor, why did the Secretary of the Conference say otherwise? I have sent that question to those in the know, hopefully, they will respond soon.

The Traditional Plan was criticized on the floor of Conference for being wholly unconstitutional; however, that is not the case. Out of the 16 petitions needed to implement the Traditional Plan 8 were deemed to be unconstitutional. These issues could be fixed with small adjustments just as supporters of the One Church Plan (OCP) did during the discussion of that plan.

When the OCP came up for a vote, they offered no less than four amendments to bring their petitions in line with the Constitution, but they criticized proponents of the Traditional plan for doing the same thing.

Two disaffiliation petitions or gracious exit petitions passed.

One argument for the OCP is that people in churches often disagree and are able to do ministry together. That is true, not everyone sees eye to eye in local churches, and yet ministry can still happen. It is one thing to have disagreements in a local church, it is another to enshrine those differences in denominational policies which seek to soften or deny the Scriptural teaching.

It was amazing to me that some of the most impassioned pleas against the OCP came from Russia, a nation that was officially atheistic not so long ago. While OCP proponents claim that their plan would not affect the Central (overseas) Conference, it was demonstrated that by changing the definition of marriage in the Social Principles would affect them.

Another plan which was debated was the Simple Plan. In essence, the Simple plan removes all prohibitions against same-sex issues and hope to level the field so the church can be fully inclusive. After abundant discussion and debate, the Simple Plan was rejected and will not be forwarded to the Plenary session of General Conference.

This ended the Legislative session, and tomorrow the decisions will be presented to the General Conference Plenary session for final action.

One note on tomorrows session: I understand we must vacate the arena promptly at 6:30 pm so the staff can begin hauling in dirt for a monster truck rally. No really!

General Conference – Day 2

By admin

On February 24, 2019

In General Conference, Uncategorized

We began this Sunday and the first legislative day of the Special Session of General Conference in Worship. Bishop Ken Carter of the Florida AC preached from Ephesians on being people of the cross and the flame.

Bishop Carter was one of three bishops assigned to the Commission on a Way Forward. He has been an ardent supporter of the One Church Plan.

His sermon was based on Ephesians 2:13ff. He began to talk about the goodness of our connection and the good that has been done through it. I, too, applaud all the UMC has been able to do because we are connected.

However, much of his sermon was a lesson in taking scripture out of context. When Paul said that Jesus had “broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us” (Ephesians 2:14) he was not talking about the divide that exists between those who differ on the issues of human sexuality. Human sexuality was a settled issue for Paul even though he lived in a sexually pluralistic society. He was talking about the division between Jew and Gentile.

The barrier refers to the wall of separation that existed in the temple to keep Gentiles from coming into the space allotted to the Jewish people. By implication, it could also refer to the barrier that sin erected between God and us, as Bishop Carter rightly stated, “God overcame the division of our sin and God’s holiness.”

He then seemed to scold those who support the traditional plan by saying that schism is never God’s plan for revival. That is hard to maintain when confronted with the Reformation and Wesley’s formation of the Methodist’s in America. Those who support the Traditional plan do not want schism, they want those who violate the Book of Discipline to be held accountable. The Discipline’s, which has been reaffirmed at every General Conference since 1972, reflects the teachings of the historic church down through the ages, while advocating the worth and dignity of every person. Are the schismatics those who live up to our common covenant or those who break the covenant? By the way, every person who has broken the covenant agreed that the church’s doctrine and polity were in line with Holy Scripture when they were ordained.

Bishop Carder asked the conference, “Have we done everything to maintain the unity of the Spirit?” It is a good question. We should bend over backwards to make sure we are not mean-spirited or unloving, but the unity of the Spirit is not the same as the unity of the institution. The Holy Spirit produces unity in the body of Christ as a natural byproduct of the Spirit’s presence, so we should do everything to maintain what the Spirit produces. However, the UMC is just one manifestation of the body of Christ, not the whole thing.

Report from the Commission on a Way Forward

The next two hours, at a minimum, was spent on hearing the report from the commission which brought us the three plans. After some general remarks, one person from the commission spoke and commended each plan: The One Church Plan, the Connectional Conference Plan, and the Modified Traditional plan. We should all be grateful for the work these individuals did with the task assigned to them.

The GC then began to prioritizing the work they would do in dealing with these plans and the additional petitions sent to the conference. Each plan or petition was presented to the Conference, and each delegate voted whether the item was a high priority or a low priority. The percentage of high priority votes an item received determined the order in which the item would be discussed in the legislative committee. While the list was exhaustive here are the highlights: the petitions from Wespath, dealing with pension issues received the highest percentage (64%) of high priority votes, followed by the Traditional Plan at 56% and two petitions for disaffiliation with the UMC (50% and 50% respectively). The One Church Plan came in fifth with 49% of the vote, followed by the Simple Plan (19%) and the Connectional Conference Plan (12%). The other petitions were scattered in the lower 15 items.

When these numbers were announced, I experienced a palpable silence in the arena as if people were surprised by the result.

The conference then elected leaders for the legislative committee of the whole to fine tune each of the items and recessed, to be reconvened as a legislative committee. During this break, a group of disillusioned advocates for LGBTQI persons began chanting in the lobby, “Hate divides!” Later about 20 of them walked through the Observer area chanting, “Hate divides, love provides.” The presiding bishop continued the work of the conference, and after a few minutes, the protesters were asked to leave by the ushers.

The Legislative committee dealt with the pension issue and then adjourned about 40 minutes early. The Traditional plan will be on the agenda the first thing in the morning. Worship is scheduled from 8:00 am to 8:20, and after a brief break, I assume the work will begin.

There is more I could write, but it is late, and I’m tired. So, till tomorrow…

General Conference: Prayer and Preparation

By admin

On February 23, 2019

In Uncategorized

The first official day of General Conference 2019 (GC) was a day spent in prayer and preparation. The bishops of the church led us in different forms of prayer. We heard prayers in several different languages. We sang or listened to hymns in different languages.

We prayed for delegates, for attendees, and consecrated prayer rooms. We prayed for various parts of the mission of the church. We submitted ourselves to God for the work to be done during the next few days. It was a good start.

It was cold and rainy when I arrived and immediately the delegates and observers were greeted by people supporting one or another agenda. Of course, there were the usual suspects as well, those who have no skin in the game, want their voices heard, for and against the changing of current church policy.

On my trip to St. Louis I started reading Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus: A Devout Muslim Encounters Christianity by Nabeel Qureshi, a Muslim apologist who converted to Christianity. The book gives us a glimpse into the Muslim world and describes how Qureshi came to embrace Jesus as the Christ.

The juxtaposition of the opening chapters of that book and what I witnessed at GC was astounding. Qureshi and other Muslims have a reverence for Allah that is seldom found in Christianity. In a story of Qureshi praying in a mosque, he struggles with his Muslim faith but is fearful that his doubts and questions will offend Allah even as he voices them in prayer. He is beginning a move toward seeing Jesus as Messiah but worries he may be wrong and in asking this question he is offending the God he was raised to worship.

At GC there were many people sporting rainbow stoles or lobbying for changing the UMC’s current stand on LGBTQ issues as if all it really takes to change this is a little political finesse. Do we really think God is indifferent to these things? We can be so glib and familiar with divine things that we have lost our reverence – or dare I say it – our fear of God.

This stark contrast has caused me no little heaviness in my heart, not because I lack compassion for certain people, but because I have had a glimpse of my own tendency to close my eyes to reverence for God, the Holy One of Israel. How can I say with any confidence that I think God would endorse this or that position without a clear word from Scripture?

Have we depersonalized God from the right and the left? Drs. Scott Kisker and David F. Watson talk about this depersonalized God in this way:

God functions, in a lot of church contexts, not as a person, but as a construct. God is an idea that sort of gives some weight to a set of ethical claims you want to make, instead of being a person who has done things in history for the redemption of humanity.

God is an idea that I need to be able to harness and the church is an institution I need to harness to promote whatever vision of the future I want to bring about.

(Plain Truth Podcast. Dec 17, 2018)

I have personally wrestled with many issues that would have been quickly settled if I could have said, “God is doing a new thing through the Spirit” even though the Scriptures clearly said something different. I guess that is the strength of having a scripturally grounded faith, it keeps me from creating a faith in my image.

I sometimes ask the question, “If the GC votes to travel a path that is not in harmony with Scripture are we to say that God is doing a new thing and we are following the fresh wind of the Spirit, or that we have once again followed a course of action based on political lobbying and left historic Christianity behind?” I also ask, “Would the Spirit of God lead a group in a direction that is contrary to God’s word, and if so, what does that mean for the other ‘truths’ of Scripture we cling to?”

If we have prayed for God to have God’s way in this conference, what happens when a decision is passed which one side or the other believe to be wrong (it will happen) will the side who feels wronged bow and say, “God has spoken,” and submit to that decision? I doubt it. Our whole human race has a long track record of knowing what God desires and going our own way (Gen 3:1-7).

I realize this post may cause more questions than it solves but dealing with questions like these is one way I try to be honest with my faith and hopefully honor God in the process.

Theological Cohesion and the UMC

By admin

On December 17, 2018

In Bible, Observations, Theoloical Thoughts, United Methodist Church

Dr. Kevin Watson, Assistant Professor of Wesleyan and Methodist Studies at Candler School of Theology, recently posted a series of tweets in which he posited that, among other things, theological coherence is a vital part of the unity of the United Methodist Church. Earlier in that series of tweets asserted that “the purpose of polity is to protect the unity of the church in the midst…of disagreement.”

I could not agree more!

When I first came to the UMC and started the process toward licensure and ordination, I was not at all interested in joining an institution. I was enamored with the theology and its coherence with Scripture.

I joined a Charismatic UMC after rededicating my life to Christ. I did so, knowing nothing about the UMC or its theology, I merely saw the authenticity of the people in the church and their relationship with Christ.

Later, as I was preparing for my own calling at an independent Bible Training center, I was assigned to research a denomination or a leading figure in church history. Since I knew nothing about the UMC, I did my paper on John Wesley.

I visited the library of Oral Roberts University, at the time a UM approved seminary, and checked out some books on Wesley and his theology. I was utterly captivated by what I read. I resonated with Wesley’s ideas and how they corresponded to my understanding of Scripture. Upon my return to my home church, I made the decision to pursue ministry in the UMC, not because of the institution, many things troubled me about that, but with its theological coherence with Scripture. Since that day, over 30 years ago, I have only grown in my appreciation of the core of Wesleyan theology. I consider myself a follower of Christ in the Wesleyan tradition.

I remember well answering the historical questions put to all candidates for ordination by the bishop from the Book of Discipline, particularly these:

(8) Have you studied the doctrines of The United Methodist Church?

(9) After full examination do you believe that our doctrines are in harmony with the Holy Scriptures? (¶330.5.d Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church, 2016)

As I understood these questions, I was to examine the doctrines of the church, in light of the Scriptures and determine if, in my mind there was coherence. I did that and found wonderful harmony.

Now, in the current debate over human sexuality, I am told, that actually the institution can change the doctrine and coherence. Scripture is no longer a standard, except when it comes to loving others (whatever that means). It seems then that we are asked to accept institutional wisdom or political expedience as the core of our doctrines.

Instead of the Scriptures, interpreted throughout Christian tradition, reasoned by comparing text with text, and the lived experience of the church through the ages, we are asked to bow to the Magisterium of the institutional church.

This approach places the church on the shifting sands of an ever-changing culture and give us no solid place to stand. In contrast, the church of the first three centuries stood over against the prevailing culture in a number of ways and transformed the world as we know it as Larry Hurtado, professor of New Testament Language, Literature and Theology at the University of Edinburgh has demonstrated in his book, Destroyer of the gods: Early Christian Distinctiveness in the Roman World.

I am grateful to a new generation of UM scholars, such as Kevin Watson, David Watson, Matt O’Riley, and others who are calling the church back to a unity based on theological and biblical coherence.

A Pastor’s Honest Reexamination of Homosexuality

By admin

On November 25, 2018

In Bible, Church Life, FUMC Eufaula, Interpretation, Observations, Theoloical Thoughts, United Methodist Church

In my conversations with people about homosexuality and the Scripture, I have come across several people who challenged me, claiming I always preach against homosexuality and no other sins. They have also claimed I had taken verses out of context to support the view I endorsed beforehand. The most strident of these came from two friends who objected to a blog post I wrote a few years back. I took these challenges seriously and went on a quest to discover if there were things I was not considering. I approached this question with the attitude that my views could be wrong.

First, in thirty-one years of ministry I have only preached one sermon on the issue, it was a series I taught dealing with complicated and messy problems in the church. However, I have preached numerous sermons against greed, unforgiveness, bitterness, sexual immorally, and other sins.

The first thing I did regarding the charge of taking things out of context was to read the entire book of Leviticus, paying particular attention to the overall themes and settings of the various laws. I discovered two overarching themes: 1) God told the people you shall be holy because I am holy, and 2) Do not be like the nations around you.

In the immediate context of the primary passages on homosexuality in Leviticus, God tells the people:

Leviticus 18:1–5 (NRSV) — ¹ The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: ² Speak to the people of Israel and say to them: I am the Lord your God. ³ You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You shall not follow their statutes. ⁴ My ordinances you shall observe and my statutes you shall keep, following them: I am the Lord your God. ⁵ You shall keep my statutes and my ordinances; by doing so one shall live: I am the Lord.

In other words, the laws which follow are given so that God’s people would not be like the people with which they have had close cultural contact: the Egyptians and the Canaanites. Immediately after the list of prohibited sexual relationships, we find a restatement of the primary reasons:

Leviticus 18:24–30 (NRSV) — ²⁴ Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, for by all these practices the nations I am casting out before you have defiled themselves. ²⁵ Thus the land became defiled; and I punished it for its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. ²⁶ But you shall keep my statutes and my ordinances and commit none of these abominations, either the citizen or the alien who resides among you ²⁷ (for the inhabitants of the land, who were before you, committed all of these abominations, and the land became defiled); ²⁸ otherwise the land will vomit you out for defiling it, as it vomited out the nation that was before you. ²⁹ For whoever commits any of these abominations shall be cut off from their people. ³⁰ So keep my charge not to commit any of these abominations that were done before you, and not to defile yourselves by them: I am the Lord your God.

The clear warning here is for God’s people to not be like the nations around them. Apparently, homosexual behavior was known and practiced openly among the Egyptians and Canaanites, and God did not want the people of Israel drawn into those behaviors. In other words, because the people were in close cultural contact with people who practiced such things, they were explicitly told not to emulate them.

Skipping over the Gospels and Jesus for the moment, I looked at the passages in Paul’s letters.

1 Corinthians 6:9–11 (NRSV) — ⁹ Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, ¹⁰ thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. ¹¹ And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

In this passage, the word translated sodomite (ἀρσενοκοίτης), in some contexts refers to the active person in the sexual relationship in contrast to the word translated male prostitute (μαλακός) the passive participant. As with the passages in Leviticus, Paul most likely mentions this in his letters because the gospel is being proclaimed to Jews and Gentiles in close cultural contact with nations who practice such things.

Why did Jesus not mention homosexuality? It is a fair question and one that deserves an answer. There are of course indirect prohibitions where Jesus lifts up the ideal of heterosexual marriage as God’s ideal (cf. Matt 19:3-9). Recently, Scot McKnight wrote that when Jesus permitted divorce for unchastity (πορνεία) his hearers would have had in mind the sexual prohibitions of Leviticus 18 (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2014/04/04/what-is-porneia-to-a-1st-century-jew/)

I think Jesus did not mention homosexuality specifically because he was a Jew speaking to Jews. In their cultural context, the prohibition against this kind of sexual immorality was a given, just like idolatry. Jesus never gives an explicit prohibition against idolatry, except where he plainly states there is only one God. Of the seven occurrences of the word translated idolatry they all appear in Paul’s letters and never in the Gospels. Jesus also never mentions another strictly Jewish practice such as circumcision. However, he does mention the food laws, but only to cancel them out and declare all foods clean (Mk 7:18-23).

It is instructive to look at the so-called Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 when navigating the cross-cultural requirements for Gentiles coming to the faith. As the elders listened to voices from both sides of the argument of how much of the Law of Moses should be compulsory for Gentile converts, James remarked,

Acts 15:19–20 (NRSV) — ¹⁹ Therefore I have reached the decision that we should not trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God, ²⁰ but we should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood.

All the laws of the Old Testament were boiled down to two: refrain from association with idolatry and sexual immorality (πορνεία).

Some people claim I reject homosexual behavior because I have had no friends who were homosexual. That too is wrong. A young man who was in the youth group I attended when I was younger, came out as a homosexual after his marriage failed. He was one of the people who challenged me on my views, and we exchanged a few emails. He spoke of his desire to fight against the urges he had, but a few days later posted an inappropriate message to another friend hoping for a sexual hook-up. He apparently didn’t know his message was public. Eventually, because of his severe depression and anxiety, he committed suicide.

Also, in a previous church, there was an elderly gay couple that I regularly interacted with on Sunday mornings and even visited in the hospital when they were sick. Eventually, I preached both of their funerals.

Recently, a former staff member at another church graduated from seminary and later wrote me to say he had identified as gay. This young man was a stellar staff member, and in conversation with him, I assured him of my love for him and reminded him that although he identified as gay, his true identity was in Christ.

Some years ago, I heard about a professor from Duke Divinity School, Richard Hays, who had written a book on Christian ethics entitled The Moral Vision of the New Testament. After laying out what he sees at the ethical gird of the New Testament – community, cross, and new creation, he then applies that framework to various modern issues in the appendices. He tackles the issue of homosexuality in one appendix and concludes that homosexual behavior is inconsistent with the moral vision of the New Testament and further goes on the say those who practice such behavior should not be ordained. He came to these conclusions even while having a lifelong friendship with a gay man. They regularly discussed the issue, and his friend remarked how he felt the pro-gay Christian movement were misleading many in the church.

My search over the past few years has been earnest and humble. I realize I could be wrong, however, what I found was a consistent witness across the church and throughout time. The interpretive ideas set forth by pro-homosexual scholars and other advocates are just wrong and misleading.

In the past year, I have discovered that many, if not most of the people I know who are in support of the ordination of homosexuals and advocating for the church to allow same-sex weddings in their facilities do so for two main reasons. First, socio-political reasons. They see this issue in the same vein as racial issues or women’s issues; this is just the next social issue we need to address. As a colleague remarked in a recent meeting, “We got it wrong with slavery and women, we need to get this one right.” Second, personal reasons. They support removing restrictive language in the Book of Discipline because they have a close friend or family member who is gay. They want things changed because it will somehow be more affirming of their friend.

What I have yet to see is a sound scriptural argument for changing our church’s stance. In groups whenever I bring this up, people say well the scriptures can be interpreted many different ways – and this from seminary-trained individuals. I agree that while different interpretations of scripture can be put forward, the accepted principles of biblical hermeneutics rules some of them out as implausible.

I personally believe that the current debate in the United Methodist Church is more about biblical authority than homosexuality. I pray that Scripture would once again be put in its rightful place and that we would learn to love as Jesus loved.

The Book: Q and A

By admin

On September 10, 2018

In Bible, FUMC Eufaula, Sermons

As promised, here are the Questions and answers from our series on the Bible. Thank you for submitting the questions, they were challenging and allowed me to learn even more about the various topics.

How does Methodism reconcile the Bible’s creation story with evolution?

The current evolution/creation controversy is based on two fundamental errors.

It pits science against dogmatic faith, they are not necessarily opposed to each other.

1. Both Christianity and materialism are interpretations of facts and both are faith commitments.
Two entirely different definition of science are used interchangeably

1. One is the what science actually is observation of the world. It is a methodology: observation, experimentation, testing.

The second definition of science involves the philosophy of naturalistic materialism: matter and energy governed by natural law. Any view that doesn’t conform to this definition is not scientific.

However, philosophy always trumps the methodology. That is, any scientific methodology (first definition) that supports any type of creation is summarily disqualified by scientific philosophy (second definition) as “religion disguised as science.”

Defining the terms

Evolution is defined differently depending on who you are talking to. Here are some common definitions:

Change over time – the simplest definition and one that we see alaround us.
The process whereby minor changes take place in an organization to produce new characteristics (Darwin Special evolution) we would call it microevolution. Adaptation to a changing environment. (Darwin’s famous finches).
The process where major changes take place in an organism to produce new kinds of organisms. (Darwin’s General Theory). Darwin theorized that if small observable changes could be observed over time, large change could too. He theorized a process of random mutation and survival of the fittest. This is what most scientists mean by evolution.

Skeptical and atheistic scientists have serious reservation about Darwinian evolution.

In the 1980 Berkeley held a highly anticipated Origin of Life Conference. It completely failed to produce a plausible scenario for how life itself chemically evolved, Dr. Robert Shapiro wrote a book entitled Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth. (“Creation” here refers to biochemical evolution.) Shapiro is an educated skeptic of creation, an eminent chemist from New York University and an expert in his field. In his book he decimates the reigning ideas of how life could have evolved from non-life.

Michael Denton wrote Evolution: A Theory in Crisis to show that the original scientific objections to evolution that faced Darwin–and were argued powerfully by his contemporaries–still apply after more than 100 years of scientific research and progress.

Both of these books were written by non-religious people raising scientific objections to evolution. Shapiro remains an evolutionist, hoping that the future will turn up more evidence for biochemical evolution than the past has been able to produce. Denton ends his analysis with this statement: “The Darwinian theory is the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century,” and then adds, “like the Genesis-based cosmology which it replaced.”

These men are not religious and work inside of the established scientific community, not outside of it. Yet each offers scientifically rigorous and compelling arguments against the idea that known natural processes are adequate to explain the biological complexity of our world.^[1]

Michael Behe is a cellular biologist with impeccable credentials. In his book Darwin’s Black Box, he shows that the irreducible complexity of life can’t be explained by Darwinian gradualism. He updated the book in 2016 with the title, Evolution: A Theory Still in Crisis.

James Shapiro of the University of Chicago, a molecular biologist and a deeply committed evolutionist, made this candid remark in response to Behe’s work:

“There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject–evolution–with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses work in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity.”^[2]

One of the world’s leading paleontologists, Niles Eldredge, says the fossil record has produced no evidence of transitional forms. He goes on to say that it is no surprise “paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen.”^[3]

The greatest weakness of the theory of evolution is that science has not discovered a process that can create all the necessary information, which can be likened to the software that directs a computer. Without such a demonstrated creative process, evolution is merely a story, because it’s supposed mechanism can neither be duplicated in a laboratory nor observed in nature.^[4]

God may have created organic life directly or he may have evolved it from inorganic life by natural processes; nothing we know for sure in either theology or science, God or nature, makes us absolutely certain of either answer.^[5]

Options for Christians when it comes to the origins debate.

Young Earth Creationism
Old Earth Creationism
Theistic Evolution
Intelligent Design Theory

In the book In the Beginning… We Misunderstood, Johnny Miller and John Soden suggest we have completely missed the meaning of Genesis 1 and 2. They suggest, and I agree, that we need to ask, How would the original hearers have understood the story? In other words, they were asking, “Who is responsible for creation.”

This becomes very apparent when you compare Genesis 1 and 2 with other creation stories from the Ancient Near East, such as the Enuma Elish

We need to be careful not to pit Scripture against science, or nature against [interpretation]. In creation debates, we are talking about our interpretation of Scripture and our interpretation of nature. God’s two revelations, nature and Scripture always agree.

It’s our interpretation of Scripture and our interpretation of nature that may conflict. And when they do, it follows that one (or both) of our conflicting interpretations is wrong. Consequently, we should give priority to the interpretation that is more certain.

Christian theologian and philosopher, Norm Geisler reminds us, “God has revealed Himself in His Word and in His world…. The problem is what we do when they seem to conflict. It is too simplistic to conclude that the Bible is always right and science is wrong. Of course, the Bible is always right, but our interpretation of it is not.”^[6]

Are there “missing” or “lost” books of the Bible? The Catholic Bible has the Book of Judith and the Maccabees and extra parts in Esther, why?

Apocrypha – Means “things that are hidden.” Includes a collection of 15 books written between about 200 B.C. and A.D. 100.

Although never part of the Hebrew Scriptures, all 15 apocryphal books except 2 Esdras appear in the Greek translation of the OT, the Septuagint. They were made a part of the official Latin Bible, the Vulgate. All except 1 and 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh are considered canonical (in the Bible) and authoritative by the Roman Catholic Church. From the time of the Reformation, the apocryphal books have been omitted from the canon of the Protestant churches.^[7]

Some 30 books called “lost books”, but they are not lost.

“Early church leaders rejected certain books as unrepresentative of their beliefs that they actually believed reflected their beliefs.’

The Didache
Epistle of Barnabas
Shepherd of Hermas
Gospel of Judas

Gospel of Thomas

These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas recorded.

1) And he said, “Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death.”

2) Jesus said, “Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all. [And after they have reigned they will rest.]”

87) Jesus said, “How miserable is the body that depends on a body, and how miserable is the soul that depends on these two.”

114) Simon Peter suggested to them: Mary Magdalene should leave us. Women are unworthy of the life.

Jesus said: I shall lead her so as to make her a man, that she may become a Living Spirit, as you other men for every woman made manly, shall enter the Kingdom of Heaven.^[8]

Why did Jesus have to kill the fig tree?

He did not have to. It was an object lesson for the disciples. The tree had leaves, but no figs, which if should have. It was advertising that it had fruit which it did not, the same with the Judaism of the day.

Just as the fig tree’s fruitfulness was a sign of its health, so fruitfulness was a sign of Israel’s faithfulness to the covenantal standards. Now that Israel, especially represented by its religious leadership, has perverted the temple practices and has not repented at the appearance of Jesus Messiah proclaiming the arrival of the kingdom of heaven, Israel is being judged by God.^[9]

Please explain the 144,000 sealed from the tribes of Israel.

This has to do with the symbolism of numbers in the Bible.

The selection and order of the 12 tribes suggest that the 144,000, sealed from every tribe of the sons of Israel have symbolic significance, representing the faithful people of God. These are not Jacob’s sons, for Dan is omitted and Manasseh included. They are not the tribes that inherited land in Canaan, for Dan is omitted, Levi (the priestly tribe) is included, and Joseph is listed instead of his son Ephraim. Judah, the tribe of the Messiah (5:5), appears first rather than Reuben, the firstborn. The number 12,000 reappears in the dimensions of the new Jerusalem (Rev. 21:16). Indeed, the number 144,000 (12 × 12 × 1,000) suggests symbolism here, but that does not necessarily decide the question of whether “Israel” is also a symbol for the church, or is intended to refer to literal, ethnic Israel.^[10]

The 144,000 represent the faithful people of God.

How will judgement be rendered at the end of time? Does belief in Jesus as Savior and Lord meant that judgement will be different than for those who have not believed and have not lived a Christian life?

2 Cor 5:10 – does this refer to believers as well as non-believers?

2 Corinthians 5:10 (NRSV) — ¹⁰ For all of us must appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each may receive recompense for what has been done in the body, whether good or evil.

From all of that I have been reading and studying, I have modified my view on this. For most of my life I believed that when someone accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior, that was all that was necessary. This thinking says that since we are not saved by our works but by grace, works (good deeds) were not necessary for salvation, but counter to it. Some have the idea that God weighs all my works and if I have more good works than bad, I get to go to heaven. That is not a Christian idea, but a pagan idea.

Recently, I have changed my position, not least because of the way Scripture talks about judgment.

Whenever Jesus talked about judgment he talked about deeds, not beliefs. A classic example is the Parable of the Sheep and Goats in Matthew 25:31-46

Also, these passages,

Luke 6:46–47 (NRSV) — ⁴⁶ “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I tell you? ⁴⁷ I will show you what someone is like who comes to me, hears my words, and acts on them.

Paul also says much about our works:

1 Corinthians 6:9–10 (NRSV) — ⁹ Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, ¹⁰ thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.

Galatians 5:18–23 (NRSV) — ¹⁸ But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not subject to the law. ¹⁹ Now the works of the flesh are obvious: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, ²⁰ idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, ²¹ envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these. I am warning you, as I warned you before: those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. ²² By contrast, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, ²³ gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against such things.

Romans 2:4–8 (NRSV) — ⁴ Or do you despise the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not realize that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? ⁵ But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath, when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed. ⁶ For he will repay according to each one’s deeds: ⁷ to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; ⁸ while for those who are self-seeking and who obey not the truth but wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.

Revelation 20:11–13 (NRSV) — ¹¹ Then I saw a great white throne and the one who sat on it; the earth and the heaven fled from his presence, and no place was found for them. ¹² And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Also, another book was opened, the book of life. And the dead were judged according to their works, as recorded in the books. ¹³ And the sea gave up the dead that were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and all were judged according to what they had done.

I think it is a misrepresentation of the biblical data to say we will not be judged by our works. Our works are the concrete expression of our commitment to Jesus. Paul is primarily denying the value of the “works of the Law” those things that demonstrate the difference between Jews and Gentiles. If our primary focus is on those things there is no help for us.

In other words, if our faith is real it will result in good deeds. If our lives demonstrate no appreciable difference from our non-Christian friends and neighbors, we need to raise serious questions about the genuineness of our faith.

For more on this see Salvation by Allegiance Alone by Matthew W. Bates

Does the failure to talk about the “inspired” aspect of the Bible lead to people leaving the church?

No. People do not abandon Christianity because we use “inspired” less. They leave for a variety of reasons.

Concerning the oral and written evidence of both testaments, is it possible that one or the other is more credible because of this evidence?

No, it is a matter of transmission and coherence with the text.

Since the beginning of the church, and even Jesus himself the credibility of the OT has been taught.

If the teachings in both testaments were written for people in a specific time period, how do we know the parts which specifically apply to us and all people?

We have to study them to determine their application.

Are they descriptive or prescriptive? Seeking advice from mediums vs. adultery
Is it tied to a specific culture? Redemption of the first-born male vs. prohibition on stealing
Is it tied to a specific situation? Jeremiah’s letter (Jer 29:11 vs. John 3:16)
Is it taught in the rest of Scripture? The food laws of the OT are abolished by Jesus (Mark 7:18-23)

Many teachings in the OT seem to be contradicted by Jesus’ teaching (i.e. wars which killed millions with God in control in OT, and Love and respect for human life in NT), how can we sort out, justify, dismiss, etc. these teachings?

It is not a matter of contradiction or dismissal, but of fulfilling and deepening.

Most scholars recognize an unfolding or progression of revelation. God took the current cultural context seriously when working with the Israelites.

War – Accounts of battles are subdued with compared to other ANE stories – NT Love your enemies.
Slavery – OT Law put restrains on the practice, even more were laid down in the NT
Circumcision – necessary in OT, discounted in NT
Sabbath – the only Commandment not carried over into the NT
Adultery – from the act to thinking about the act

There are stories in the Bible, particularly in the OT that don’t make any logical sense. I understand miracles that break physics, although I question that too, but a man being swallowed by a whale and living makes seems impossible. Are we to take these things literally or are they just stories with moral points. If they are just stories why are they laid as truths?

Instead of logical sense you may mean it doesn’t make sense from a materialistic world view.

When doing research with Commentaries, the best ones list all of the main options available for understanding the book as a whole and then describes the problems with each view. So, you can see the objections and the arguments for yourself and decide.

With the book of Jonah specifically —

Not a whale, a great fish

Three ways of interpreting

Historical
Allegorical
Parabolic

The main objections to historical

The great fish
Size of the city – verified by archeology
King – could mean ruler or governor
Evidence of repentance – what would the evidence be?
The Gourd –

Allegorical

None of the markers of allegory
Subjective interpretation

Parable

Jonah is much longer and more complex than other OT parables
In OT parables are usually followed by an explanation, Jonah is not
It is unclear why Jonah was chosen when he had no real connection to the events

In summary, there is no reason to not assume a historical basis for the book that is not reasonably defendable, unless you have a presupposition that miraculous events cannot possibly occur. If so, what do you do with other events, Red Sea, Plagues, Elijah and Elisha narratives, Resurrection. The only two viable options are historical or parabolic.

“As much as I believe the events described in the book, we should resist the use of the “whale” question as a litmus test for orthodoxy. Such a question obfuscates the Word of God in Jonah and preempts a reader’s discovering God’s message for today. That message must not be eclipsed by our modern preoccupations with physical phenomena. The powerful messages of reconciliation with God, his creating power, and his persistent call for his people to speak to unbelievers concerning the Lord of all creation are essential themes of Jonah. How does the miracle of the big fish serve the message of the book? This unanticipated deliverance was a surprise to Jonah, who expected to die in the water. His own miraculous physical deliverance, when all hope was lost, caused him to rethink his views on God’s way with evil men.”^[11]

Whether it was a fish or a whale in which Jonah was kept alive is less important than the fact that God provided a miraculous means to redirect the wayward prophet to his original task, preaching repentance to Nineveh.^[12]

What book of the Bible best defines what it means to be a Christian?

John and Philippians

^[1]Gregory Koukl, “Question Evolution | Stand to Reason,” Stand to Reason, February 11, 2012, https://www.str.org/blog/question-evolution.↩
^[2]James Shapiro, “In the Details…What?,” National Review, September 19, 1996, pp. 62-65↩
^[3]https://www.str.org/quickthoughts/the-fossil-record-proves-evolution.-right↩
^[4]Real Questions, Straight Answers, Stronger Faith, ed. Ted Cabal et al. (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2007), 7–8.↩
^[5]Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics: Hundreds of Answers to Crucial Questions (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 107↩
^[6]https://www.str.org/articles/two-things-to-remember-when-discussion-creation-with-other-christians↩
^[7]Clayton Harrop, “Apocrypha, Old Testament,” ed. Chad Brand et al., Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003), 81↩
^[8]http://gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html↩
^[9]Michael J. Wilkins, Matthew, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 2004), 693–694.↩
^[10]Crossway Bibles, The ESV Study Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2008), 2473.↩
^[11]James Bruckner, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 2004), 21–22.↩
^[12]Ted Cabal et al., The Apologetics Study Bible: Real Questions, Straight Answers, Stronger Faith (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2007), 1341.↩

A Covenant and a Hope

By admin

On October 9, 2016

In Church Life, Leadership, Observations, Theoloical Thoughts

I have just finished a full day at the inaugural meeting of the Wesley Covenant Association (WCA). Before the meeting, there were all kinds of rumors and speculation about the purpose of the meeting. I knew that this was going to be a pivotal moment in the life of the denomination, so I decided to attend and hear it for myself.

What I heard in the various talks was a celebration of our covenant as United Methodists and especially clergy in the church and a message of hope. This hope is not based on organizational effort, but the presence and activity of the Holy Spirit.

Covenant

As an Elder in the United Methodist Church, I agreed to participate in a covenant with the rest of the Elders of the church and the church itself. I declared that I knew the general rules of the church and would keep them. I affirmed that I had studied the churches doctrines and found them in harmony with the Scriptures. I professed that I had studied the discipline and polity of the church, approved them and would support and maintain them (cf. The United Methodist Book of Discipline, ¶330.5.d).

This is the covenant I accepted and affirmed. If I come to the place where I can no longer abide by this covenant, then it behooves me to surrender my credentials and step out of the covenant. I expected that other clergy members would hold the covenant with the sincerity I have, but it does not seem to be the case. I fully expect to be held accountable to this covenant, such that if I violate it those appointed over me should confront me and, if possible correct me. As a matter of fact, not holding to this covenant is a chargeable offence in the Church (¶ 2702).

The WCA upholds this understanding of our covenant as clergy and as members of the Church. Upholding this covenant creates a bond of trust between the various members of the clergy and between the clergy and the church. This is what I long for. This is what I signed up for. For some, however, they expect to violate this covenant with impunity and a covenant that can be violated without consequences is no covenant at all. As the apostle Paul reminds us, “And in the case of an athlete, no one is crowned without competing according to the rules” (2 Timothy 2:5).

It seems that in many cases, national and international sports authorities care more about the rules of a game than many pastors and bishops care about the pledges of our covenant.

Hope

Hope is a central aspect of the Christian faith. It is our hope of salvation (1Th 5:8) that sustains us in difficult times (Heb 10:23). But we need to remember that hope is not in a political process, even one in the church. Our hope is set on God, God’s work through Jesus Christ and the ever dwelling presence of the Holy Spirit (1 Pe 1:13, 21).

We do not place our hope in bureaucratic policies or institutional pronouncements but in God. Because of this, I don’t pull out all the stops to protect the institution or imbue the ecclesiastical structure or the Book of Discipline with god-like status. It is simply a tool used by God for a season. It is a wonderful tool filled with the seeds of promise. I love this tool and appreciate all of the opportunities and privileges I have received because of it, but it is not the end all and be all of the kingdom of God.

In Luke 21 people commented to Jesus about the beauty and adornment of the temple, but he told them, “the days will come when not one stone will be left upon another; all will be thrown down” (Luke 21:6). Jesus didn’t completely denigrate the temple; he called it his “Father’s house,” and “a house of prayer for all nations.” Jesus emphasized the purpose of the temple, not the structure itself.

Likewise, John Wesley, an Anglican priest, knew that God was much bigger than the institution he knew and loved. He went about trying to renew the Church of England but trusted God’s work even when it took him outside the bounds of the institution. Eventually, the institution barred him from preaching in many of its churches, but the poor and working class people listen and came in droves.

For those of us who follow Jesus Christ in a Wesleyan way, we understand that about the institutional church. My hope and prayer is that the denomination called the United Methodist Church will renew its primitive devotion to God and the dedication of its founder. I long to see that day. But if it doesn’t happen, God is not handcuffed. God will raise up another tribe who will pray, proclaim and work for the kingdom of God.