Category: Observations Page 1 of 2

Theological Cohesion and the UMC

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.

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.

Far Right

By admin

On June 9, 2016

In Church Life, Navarre UMC, Observations, Theoloical Thoughts

The other day I was reading one of the hundreds of articles posted during the United Methodist General Conference. As I read the article, I frequently ran across the term “far right.” The more I read and tried to understand the writer’s perspective, I discovered he was referring to me; not by name but generally.

Why did the author use the term “far right?” It was clear that it was employed in a pejorative sense to label certain people who had not just a differing opinion, but an opinion which, in that writer’s view, was out of touch and extreme.

So what does it mean to say that I and many others are “far right” in our views?

I believe the in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. I think that they contain everything the is necessary for faith and godliness. I would not say that I believe everything in the Bible is true, but that what it contains is the truth when interpreted in the way the author(s) intended it to be understood.

I believe a person who has submitted themselves to the Lordship of Jesus Christ, has an obligation to read and understand the Scriptures and to receive those words as binding. That implies that I do my best to interpret the passage in light of the historical and cultural context of the time and translating that to our own time.

In that way, we can appropriate the Scriptures of our faith in a way that is consistent and brings glory to God. If that makes me “far right,” then I guess that is where I will stand.

I also believe that when I became an elder in The United Methodist Church took vows to uphold the doctrine and teachings of the church; that pledge meant something. The bishop asked if I had read and studied the doctrines of the church and agreed that they were in line with the teachings of Scripture. I promised to keep those rules, not because I feared punishment, but for the sake of my conscience.

If that understanding of my vows and commitments to the church makes me “far right,” again here I stand.

In reality, I don’t see those positions as far right, except as people try to distinguish people from one another in a political way. I see them as standing in the center of faith and practice.

In that sense, to be “far right” means I make Scripture speak to things it never intended to address and expect people to adhere to rules or laws that go beyond the plain sense of Scripture (among other things). It also means I expect people to believe more doctrine than our Articles of Religion say, and that violators should be held accountable for any infringement, intentional or not.

In the same way, I believe far left means that I put little stock in what ancient writings say. They are mere suggestions about how to order our lives. Our polity and promises, likewise are simple ideas on how to get along in big tent of Methodism. My vows just state my intentions up to that point, and I am free to break them if I deem them unjust (or inconvenient).

Maybe I am naive, but I think we should limit labels like far right and far left and faithfully live and teach the Scriptures we have received and the vows we took.

You Shouldn’t Judge!

By admin

On August 27, 2015

In Church Life, Leadership, Navarre UMC, Observations

In recent months I have encountered an idea that gives credence to the age-old adage that as Christians we should never judge other individuals; NEVER. The problem with this sentiment is that it uses the word “judge” to condemn any kind of differentiation or attempt to hold someone accountable for their behavior. It has even been used to discourage any kind of standard to which people might be held. It is simply unscriptural.

To begin with, Jesus did not mean that we should never draw distinctions or make evaluations of people’s behavior. Jesus’ command comes in a context where he assumes that we will make judgments. This discourse, known as The Sermon on the Mount, is a seminal piece of Jesus’ teaching. Jesus says:

“Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.” (Matthew 7:1–2)

Four verses later, he says we should not “give what is holy to dogs or throw our pearls before swine,” It sounds to me that we are to make judgments about who are dogs or pigs; not very flattering.

In the same chapter, Jesus tells people “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:15–16).

Here, Jesus tells us to evaluate the character of people by observing their behavior and then take appropriate action. To be sure, we are to keep in mind the warnings of the rest of the sermon and make these evaluations with humility and care, but we are to make them nevertheless.

Paul also tells people to make judgments about people. Notice the advice he gives the people of Corinth:

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral persons— not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since you would then need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother or sister who is sexually immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber. Do not even eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging those outside? Is it not those who are inside that you are to judge? God will judge those outside. “Drive out the wicked person from among you.”

(1 Corinthians 5:9–13; emphasis added)

Paul is very clear that if there are people in the church who are committing open sin, they are to be confronted. By the way, Paul was not contradicting Jesus!

Later, Paul gives specific guidelines about who can be considered acceptable as leaders in a congregation (1 Tim 3:1-7). He says that those who violate the guidelines should not be considered for leadership in the local church. The next verses show that these guidelines extend even to lay leaders of the church.

Paul says nothing about the person’s standing before God or their salvation. He simply says that people who have been haphazard about their lives and business should not be considered for leadership in the church. I assume that people who had shown repentance and demonstrated a change of heart could be considered.

In our present context it is necessary and even judicious to make evaluations of people who are placed in leadership in the church. We already do this with our church’s Safe Sanctuary policy when we run background checks and reference checks. In deed, every candidate for ministry on our conference submits to an in depth background check and a battery of psychological evaluations, in addition to the rigorous theological and biblical examinations they go through. If candidates can not demonstrate readiness for ministry, they are not allowed to continue.

The examinations have nothing to do with a person’s standing before God, they are simply the standards a person must meet to work with our vulnerable populations or to be ordained ministers in our denomination.

Likewise, when it comes to leaders in our congregation there should be certain standards as well. A person in a leadership position should be a member of the church and striving to keep their vows of membership. They should be on board with the mission and vision of the church and involved in worship and discipleship. They should also demonstrate their commitment to the church through regular giving.

Why? A sports team would never allow a person to play who did not show up at practice, work on their individual conditioning and lived in a manner that casts dispersion on the team. If those things can be expected of athletes who do little to promote the well-being of the planet, why would the church of the living God expect less?

When we establish standards it does not mean that we are judging anyone, it means we care about the results we want. If we want teams and committees in our church that help us carry on the mission of the church, why would we put people on those who show no interest in contributing to that mission?

We serve a God who is infinite in mercy and love, but God also cares deeply about justice and righteousness. God does not care about one set of ideals or the other, but both of them. And God seems to indicate that we should care about those things too; with ample doses of humility and love.

Reflections on the Supreme Court’s Decision on Same-Sex Marriage

By admin

On June 30, 2015

In Church Life, Navarre UMC, Observations, Uncategorized

This past week the Supreme Court announced that gay couples deserved equal treatment with respect to marriage. The reactions to this decision have been varied and filled with emotion. A friend and colleague, Brian Miller tweeted, “We find joy in State rulings. We find despair in State rulings. It has never been & will never be the Kingdom of primary citizenship.”

That is a very important notion to remember. Dr. Tim Tennent, President of Asbury Theological Seminary echoed a similar sentiment in a June 29th Tweet and a June 28th blog post, when he said, “We may no longer expect the state to uphold Christian morality. But we have every right to expect the church to do so.”

As Christians we must understand that we take our lead from Scripture first and foremost. We do not look to the culture to define any moral position for us.
By the same token, we should not be surprised when a civil authority does not uphold our morals for us. Why would we expect such a thing? Throughout history, the Church has been grateful when the civil authorities created laws which coincide with biblical positions, but it has never expected it. The Church through the ages has always looked to Scripture for its moral mandates.

The early church understood they lived in a world that often was hostile to Christian virtues and morals. In Roman society, it was acceptable to expose infants to the elements as a way of discarding unwanted or disabled children. The church, in many instances took these children in and cared for them.

I am reminded of a portion of The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus (A.D. 130) in which an anonymous disciple tries to explain (in Chapter 5) the manner of life of Christians. He describes the Christian manner of life like this:

As citizens, they share in all things with others, and yet endure all things as if foreigners. Every foreign land is to them as their native country, and every land of their birth as a land of strangers. They marry, as do all [others]; they beget children; but they do not destroy their offspring. They have a common table, but not a common bed. They are in the flesh, but they do not live after the flesh. They pass their days on earth, but they are citizens of heaven. They obey the prescribed laws, and at the same time surpass the laws by their lives. They love all men, and are persecuted by all. They are unknown and condemned; they are put to death, and restored to life. They are poor, yet make many rich; they are in lack of all things, and yet abound in all; they are dishonoured, and yet in their very dishonour are glorified.

In the current situation it is important to understand a few important things:

1. The state does not speak for the church
People in non-western countries know this intuitively. They don’t expect the state to prop up their Christian convictions with legislation. In the west there are still many vestiges of civil religion and for the most part that is what Christians depend on. When those vestiges are threatened, angry rhetoric fills social media and the public square. This happens because we expect the state to do what the church should do in its witness. In many nations, the witness of the church is not supported by the state, the church bears witness by itself. When the Church takes its responsibility seriously to bear witness to the truth of Scripture it is fulfilling its mission in the world.

In the U. S. we have tended to let the state bear witness so we would not have to. Then when the state refuses to prop up our notions of morality, we rant and rave about decline of values in America. I wonder what would happen if instead of unleashing angry rhetoric we simply and effectively lived out our values.

2. Nothing changes about the mission of the church.
Ed Stetzer, president of Life Way Research said it this way, “Gay marriage is now legal. The sky has not fallen, churches have not been padlocked, and we must live on mission.” In reality, the decision changes nothing about the mission of the church. We are still to make disciples of Jesus Christ. That is important to remember.
I remember seeing an interview with a Chinese online entrepreneur. He was asked, don’t you worry about that the government’s internet restrictions will hurt your business? He said he chose to focus on the things he could do and not on the things he couldn’t do.

The same sentiment exists in churches all over the world who are persecuted for their faith. In the face of persecution, the church is still the church and the church bears witness to Jesus Christ who is the Lord of the world. The Supreme Court’s decision does not prevent us from doing what God has called us to do, bearing witness to Jesus Christ.

3. The Law of the land is not necessarily the moral vision of the NT
The Early church understood this better than we do. In the Roman empire there were many acceptable practices that the early church found unethical. Whether it was same sex relationships, the exposure of infants, slavery, prostitution, or gladiatorial games. The church found itself in a society that accepted practices which flew in the face of their moral understandings. Yet, as the church lived out its commitment to the moral vision of Scripture, they bore witness to a different way of life and had a profound impact on society. And the same thing can happen today. What if we expended the same amount energy on making our marriages and relationship better as we expended decrying the fact that the state doesn’t support our moral vision?

As Christians we cannot expect the state to uphold our moral values, so we should not be surprised when the state creates laws that are in conflict with the moral principles we hold. In a fallen, world it is vitally important that we as Christians live out a New Testament morality. We don’t do it, not to transform society, we do it because we have made Jesus Christ the Lord of our lives. And just maybe, by doing that we will make a difference even in a fallen world.

Pastor Alan

Entitlement

By admin

On April 26, 2014

In Church Life, Leadership, Navarre UMC, Observations

I have recently been thing about the whole concept of entitlement because of some reading I have been doing about the millennial generation. Having an entitlement mentality is believing that I should have certain privileges or options just because of who I am, or sometimes just because I exist in this place or time. Often times in our American culture the “privileges” become “rights.”

As much research has shown Millennials (those born between 1981 and 2004) a very entitled generation. They grew up in the era where everyone got a trophy just for showing up. But one of the things I have notices is that all of us have some level of entitlement.

People have entitlements based on a number of things:

Status in life
Income
Age (young or old)
Longevity in an organization
Amount given to an organization

This happens at many levels in church life. I have heard in 29 years of church life and they all revolve around the statement, “You should follow my advice and do things my way because I:

Have been a faithful member for X years.
Give a great deal of money to the church.
Am a charter member.
Sit on the board.
Am a member.
Am elderly
Am a future leader of the church
Am a business owner, military officer
Have an advanced degree

I could go on and on.

The problem with all of these statements is that they go completely counter to the spirit of Jesus who,

Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to. Instead, he gave up his divine privileges; he took the humble position of a slave and was born as a human being.

When he appeared in human form, he humbled himself in obedience to God and died a criminal’s death on a cross.

– Philippians 2:6–8 (NLT)

The focus of an entitlement attitude is what I want to happen rather than the mission God has sent us to accomplish. That kind of entitlement is found in us all.

As an individual, I have certain preferences myself. But those preferences must be subservient to the mission of the church and the methods it will take to accomplish that mission in our current cultural context. It is a sad idea but often the perceived privilege of membership trumps the mission every time.

But what if, as leaders, we could cultivate that opposite attitude. What if we were to say, “Whatever it takes for the mission”?

Honestly, there would be a lot of negative consequences, but a lot of positive ones as well. I think the world has not seen this kind of attitude in the church in a long time. But, what if it began with you and m

The Other Side of God

By admin

On April 9, 2013

In Navarre UMC, Observations, Theoloical Thoughts

A few weeks ago I have the privilege of meeting with several people seeking ordination in our denomination. My team’s responsibility was to review their doctrinal statements and ask questions around doctrine and theology.

For the most part, they did well in expressing the core Wesleyan doctrines of grace, salvation and other topics. However, one issue that was evident in almost all of them was as lack of understanding of certain aspects of God’s nature and attributes – theology proper.

We asked them to describe what God was like to a curious seeker who had no knowledge of God, they did a good job of talking about God’s grace, love, mercy and forgiveness, but that was where it stopped.

I asked, “What about God’s other attributes, what attributes make God’s mercy and grace necessary?” They were stumped. It seemed that the attributes of God they could relate to were on God’s “good side.” When pressed and coached, one candidate said, “Oh you mean God’s vengeance.”

The first class I took in seminary was a class on Systematic Theology and one of the first books we read was the devotional classic by A.W. Tozer, Knowledge of the Holy.

This book, along with the other textbooks in the class introduced us to the attributes of God, among many other things. The class taught us about God’s love, mercy, grace and forgiveness, but also about God’s holiness, justice, righteousness, eternity, omnipotence and omnipresence and others.

Many people pit these attributes against one another as if God were one or the other―that is not the case. God is all of these at the same time. H. Ray Dunning sums up many of God’s attributes in the term holy love. God is holy and loving, God is just and merciful. God is transcendent and imminent. God is omnipotent and compassionate; and all of these at the same time.

What is most disturbing is the characterization of God’s righteousness, holiness and justice as vengeance. Let’s draw some analogies: Are parents vengeful when they do not allow one of their children to play in the street and physically stop them from doing so? Is a civic club vengeful when it establishes a code of conduct and then holds its accountable for it? Is a teacher vengeful when she catches a student cheating and gives her/him a zero for the test? Is a judge being vengeful when he sentences a defendant to life in prison for killing someone?

I think we as pastors and “theologians in residence” have an obligation to help people understand the nature of God and not divide God up so that we can pick and choose the parts we want. We must teach and preach a God who is whole, holy and loving.

Deep Change

By admin

On March 9, 2013

In Leadership, Lent, Observations

"Deep change… is a spiritual process". that is a quote not from a popular Christian author or preacher, but a business consultant. Robert Quinn is a professor in the Ross School of Business at the University of Michigan. I don’t know anything about his religious life, but he has hit on a core life truth here. Change at the fundamental level of our lives (and our organizations) is indeed a spiritual process. Real change involves a fundamental realignment of our core values and outlook (worldview).

Many of us struggle with breaking bad habits such as over eating or over spending or addictions, because we try changing surface behaviors without changing the underlying emotional and psychological realities of our lives. The same is true of our walk with Christ. Often we come to Christ and have a sincere desire to change and become more like Jesus, but we never allow the Gospel in all its fullness to penetrate the deep places of our hearts. We become content with superficial or ornamental changes and always wonder why we keep falling into the same sins or poor choices.

For change to take place, we must allow the message of Christ to sink so deeply in our lives that our basic and fundamental assumptions about ourselves, the world and others is radically transformed, but that takes time and effort. It takes time to soak in the Word of God, build relationships with other Christians and reflect on the implications of Gospel for our lives. but, as we do everything about us will begin the change, slowly but steadily. That is the kind of change I want.

Prejudice

By admin

On August 7, 2012

In Discipleship, Observations, Relationships

When I was in high school that word had one basic connotation – racial prejudice. In the deep south the emotions ran deep and often erupted in violence. I would often hear people say things like, “He’s black, but he is a good worker.” right away you could tell what side of the racial divide the speaker was on.

I have recently discovered that prejudice extends to other areas as well. Even people who are educated and progressive often operate out of stereotypes and prejudice rather than listening to what a person is really saying. “Oh, they are only saying that because they are _________________” (fill in the blank with Liberal, Republican, Latino, Conservative, etc.) Not necessarily.

In politics, if you don’t agree with the party in power, you are partisan and just making political decisions. If some one uses a specified code word, they are automatically in lock step with the worst imaginable element of society that just happens to use that word as well.

If a person questions a particular interpretation of Scripture, that person is automatically accused of either liberalism or fundamentalism, depending on the topic, and then all of the negative assumptions about the extremes are attributed to that person. This really makes honest discourse difficult.

In the interest of full disclosure, I have been on both sides of this prejudice. I have made snap judgments and snap judgments have been made about me. When I have been on the “victim” side of the equation I find myself wondering, “how did they get that from what I said?” The answers is preconceived perceptions.

I think the only way to counter this tendency in all of us remember some very important things:

Remain open minded and don’t assume the worse. If you disagree with a person’s position on an issue, seek understanding. Don’t automatically assume you know the person’s complete position, simple because they use a particular word that other more radical persons might use.
Remain teachable. We could all be wrong! Just because I have deeply held beliefs does not mean I am correct. When disagreements occur deal with the issues and evidence—don’t commit the genetic fallacy which condemns a view because of where it came from.
Remain humble. None of us are as smart as we would like to think and all of us have huge gaping holes in our understandings. The only way I know of to keep learning is to be humble enough to examine the evidence. that goes for “yellow dog Democrats” and “Red dog Republicans.”
Seek the truth no matter what. The issue is not, “can I argue the other person into submission,” but am I authentically seeking the truth. If I honestly seek the truth, I may discover that many of my pet views are based more on little more than emotion or political correctness. This point has come home as I have watched all the political rhetoric recently. No matter what news show you watch, the bias is very evident and the real causality is the truth.