Two weeks after many United Methodists were dismayed to discover that a General Board of the United Methodist Church was closely involved in passage of the sweeping new health-care law that has vastly expanded federal power and could lead to doctor shortages and medical delays, many evangelicals in the denomination are receiving a letter from a UM renewal leader urging them not to give up on the UMC.
The Rev. Rob Renfroe
“[I]t’s easy to become discouraged about The United Methodist Church,” Good News president Rob Renfroe wrote in a support letter dated April 1.
“Some of our General Boards often take positions and make public declarations contrary to what we believe…. But I believe The United Methodist Church is worth fighting for,” he wrote.
Mr. Renfroe’s letter does not specifically mention the health-bill imbroglio and may have been written before the controversy erupted on March 21 when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi publicly thanked the UMC for “endorsing” the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a deeply unpopular bill that marks the greatest expansion of federal power in decades. (The law is being challenged as unconstitutional by at least 18 states; several private entities have filed suit as well.)
∞
UMC support for the legislation, which passed the House last month on a narrow and sharply partisan vote, came primarily from the General Board of Church and Society (GBCS), the “social justice” agency of the denomination. (The Women’s Division of the General Board of Global Ministries also pushed for greater government involvement in U.S. health care, according to RENEW—PDF link.)
In supporting a government-centered overhaul of the American health-care system, GBCS claimed the mantle of three resolutions — two of which were authored by GBCS general secretary Jim Winkler — that were hastily passed in a combined vote on the frenetic final night of the 2008 General Conference.
(One of the resolutions — “Health Care For All in the United States” — calls for creation of a tax-funded health-care system in America, which would necessarily entail “the virtually total elimination of the health insurance industry.” That resolution is now Resolution #3201 in the 2008 edition of the UM Book of Resolutions.)
In addition to supporting final passage of the controversial health bill, GBCS earlier lobbied against a pro-life provision — included in the original House version but not in the final law — that would have prohibited the use of tax revenues to pay for abortions.
∞
Speaker Pelosi’s March 21 remarks about UMC support of the health bill ignited a firestorm of calls and e-mails to pastors, district superintendents and bishops from United Methodists concerned that the new law is likely to damage the quality of U.S. health care and lead to taxpayer funding of abortions (PDF).
With some United Methodists even considering leaving the UMC in the wake of the denomination’s involvement in passage of the controversial law, Rob Renfroe’s April 1 letter has taken on a perhaps unanticipated poignancy.
In the letter, Mr. Renfroe argues that working for United Methodist renewal is a sacred trust that must not be abandoned, no matter how difficult the fight.
I believe that a Wesleyan understanding of the Gospel is one of God’s great gifts to the world. The combinations of heart and head, personal faith and social holiness, the primacy of grace and the necessity of spiritual disciplines — the balanced theology God gave us through John Wesley is something worth protecting, preserving, and promoting.
It’s a holy gift. And I refuse to walk away and leave it in the hands of those who neither appreciate it nor understand it [italics in original]….
I also believe The United Methodist Church…[has] a critical role to play in God’s redemptive purposes…. In spite of everything, we are still seen as a church that can be trusted by persons who are unchurched. We are the kind of church that parents bring their children and teenagers to and that they attend for themselves when live is hard and they are looking for a better way.
We Methodists continue to have an unparalleled opportunity to bring the lost into a saving relationship with Jesus Christ.
In concluding the letter, Mr. Renfroe encouraged his readers to not to lose heart. “[Take] the long view of things” he urged. “Continue to believe in the promises of God. Believe that he can make a way. And believe that he will use the efforts of people like you and me to protect and prosper the church and the heritage we love.”
∞
Rob Renfroe was named president of Good News and publisher of Good News magazine last year, after serving several years as a leader of the UM Confessing Movement.
He also serves as the pastor of discipleship at The Woodlands United Methodist Church near Houston, Texas. Before being appointed to The Woodlands, Mr. Renfroe was an executive pastor at First UMC in Houston, serving with late Dr. Bill Hinson.
Good News, founded in 1967 (PDF), is considered the United Methodist Church’s flagship renewal ministry.
I would agree with Mr. Renfroe, that the traditions of UMC in its purest state are worth fighting for — however, what recourse do we have if the hierarchy begins to stray from the foundational principles of Wesley?
When a few take it upon themselves to rule the masses based upon skewed ideologies, maybe it is time to clean house and start over!
Wesleyan heritage and traditions are worthy things to uphold — and it’s worth fighting for their protection and promotion. Any system that is created can be abused by those that set out to do so. We currently have people in high places that abuse and take advantage of our system without regard to the consequences of their actions re: the common good of Methodists.
The solution for some entity — whether an individual, renewal group, clergy, or bishop — to call attention to a crisis event that’s big enough to stir up the uninformed, sleeping Methodists and cause a fundamental change toward accountability and a return to a Biblical worldview and Wesleyan thought. Communication down to the smallest-church pews will be essential to making this happen.
When the foxes are in charge of the hen house, the only choice is to find another hen house or be eaten.
While I appreciate Mr. Renfoe’s position as president of Good News, I feel that he is trying to cover over the deep-seated problems many UM laypersons have with the “social justice” bent of the UMC. More and more are coming to realize that it is a code phrase for Communism.
Also, he writes: “In spite of everything, we are still seen as a church that can be trusted by persons who are unchurched.” The bigger question is Are we still seen as a church that can be trusted by persons who are “churched” in the UMC? After Nancy Pelosi’s revelation, I kind of doubt it.
[Editor's note: For more on how the term "social justice" has been used and misused in modern parlance, see Marvin Olasky's recent column, "Beck vs. Wallis: Understanding a High-Profile Fight About 'Social justice'" (WORLD, April 10, 2010). In September 2009, Dr. Olasky presented a lecture titled "Going Beyond 'Social Justice' to 'Righteous Justice'" at Southern Seminary. Audio of that lecture is available at http://www.sbts.edu/resources/lectures/norton/prodigal-doctrines-going-beyond-social-justice-to-righteous-justice/]
To turn the old phrase around, it seems too many officials in the UMC are “too earthly minded to do any heavenly good.” I’m tired of my tithes going to support abortion, gay rights and socialist programs. Even if it’s only a tiny fraction, it’s a tiny fraction too much.
The church should be better. It should be about saving souls, not pushing every failed lef- wing agenda the current White House administration wants. The church should be apolitical.
Interestingly enough, the current missive from the GBCS has a feature story on how providing access to abortions is scared work (see . Not much talk about witnessing to women who have had, or are considering abortion, but lots of pro-abortion, feminist babble. And again, my tithes go to this?!?
The more I see the more I believe we need to disband our official boards. The UMC is just an entity, man-made, not God-made. The spiritual work will continue on in one form or another. Names might change, but God doesn’t.
[Editor's note: The GBCS article to which the commenter refers is titled, "Reproductive Rights: A Matter of Social Justice." It is part of "Sex and the Church" series in GBCS' Faith in Action newsletter.]
The GBCS, like other leftist political organizations, uses the euphemism “reproductive rights” to hide its support for abortion (see http://www.goodnewsmag.org/magazine/mayjune/mj09straight.htm). This gives them plausible deniability with respect to violating the Discipline. If these organizations would uncouple abortion from “reproductive rights,” they could build much more of a consensus among church members. But they don’t, probably because they are so animated by political ideology.
Yet they have the gall to accuse others of the same thing they’re doing! As the old saying goes, the best defense is a good offense. The Modern Left, of which the GBCS is clearly a subset, has turned hypocrisy into an art form.
No, I don’t think it wise at this point to simply give in to misguided leadership and shake the dust off in moving on to another church. We should continue to work for change. Maybe that change will involve disbanding some of the UM boards like the GBCS (the financial picture may necessitate it anyway, and there’s still a pending lawsuit against the GBCS).
People tend to forget that individuals and organizations sometimes become more accusatory or vocal to hide their LACK of support and moral authority. Forums such as this help show that traditional Methodists are not in the minority. At least for the time being, I agree with Rev. Renfroe.
I do not know what to do. I lead a woman’s bible study of over 25 women and I see them growing in Christ. I do not want to leave them. My local church is like family to me.
God has opened my eyes. Unfortunately, many, if not most, don’t want to think about reality. I’m not sure if I am up for a fight, when most people are apathetic.
I may go elsewhere with good Christians and grow that local church instead. Sometimes you have to speak up (let those who have ears hear…) and then leave. At least you have given warning to your loved ones and they then have a choice.
I’m confused why anyone would threaten to leave the denomination because of something the GBCS does or says. Did people join the church because they thought the general board and agencies were so cool? Stalking off in anger seems odd to me.
If you are in a local church where you feel the Holy Spirit moving, why would you abandon that fellowship over something that some people 500 or 1,000 miles away do?
[Editor's note: Notwithstanding comments from those who have decided to seek a non-UMC church home in the wake of the UMC's involvement in passing the new health-care law, GBCS general secretary Jim Winkler recently dismissed the idea that people choose to leave the UMC as a direct result of GBCS actions:
"My personal experience is that people will leave a church for many reasons, few of which involve a public policy stance alone. People leave because they believe the pastor didn’t visit their ailing relative often enough, or because the sanctuary has been re-carpeted with a color they don’t like, or because they don’t like the youth director. These are among the myriad complaints I've witnessed throughout the years as a member of local congregations."
Without a social-research study aimed a determining specific reasons behind member departures, this question cannot be settled. The only evidence at hand is that net membership losses year-by-year are significant. The General Board of Global Missions reports a membership loss of 79,535 in 2008, the most recent year for which figures are available. The loss in 2007 was 77,778. The 2006 loss was 63,698.]
No argument about the departures happening, although the stats are always hard to parse. How many people leave and never get taken off the rolls?
I just don’t understand why someone would choose to leave over Mr. Winkler. It might be perfectly rational to some folks. I just don’t understand it.
People don’t leave over Mr Winkler, they leave over Mr Winkler’s ideology being inserted into UMC Discipline, etc.
They don’t leave when they are happy with their local church and don’t see a connection with Conference results. They do leave when they become knowledgeable about UMC hierarchy and its unChristian positions on certain issues. Or, they are lackadaisical about UMC outside their town/church and don’t leave.
My pastor is non-responsive to information I pass on to her; our Ad Council chair says, “Leave it alone.” If I can’t get people’s attention, things can’t be changed, so why stay at UMC? (especially if a number of bishops might just be false prophets).
Lastly, how much does GBCS have for a budget? Our bishop says, “Pennies on the dollar.” I read $5 million. But further, the building they own almost next to the U.S. Capitol collects office/apartment space rent. Think rents there are cheap? Remember this, “The person with the gold speaks.”
JoeR is right. The problem is not just Mr. Winkler — it’s what he and other like-minded UM leaders force into the equation. They confuse proselytizing for Christ with proselytizing for a particular political position. I think this should be of concern to any church member, regardless of their political leanings.
This has been a rather slow but steady process that (if even known) has been ignored by many UM leaders in the hope it will benignly take care of itself. The problem involves not just positions but methods, and it has grown beneath the surface like a cancer. Now eyebrows are being raised because some tumors are starting to pop up, such as the Speaker Pelosi statement on the health care bill.
Church officials, including pastors and bishops, do not want to confront this problem because:
1) they are unaware of it and would rather not know about it because that might mean they’d have to offer a response;
2) they agree with it (but won’t advertise such agreement);
3) they know about it, but, not wanting to be controversial, would rather risk a continued slow (but peaceful) death vs. an outright split in the church.
What’s also confounding, even if you agree with what Mr. Winkler is doing, is why he has held his position for so long. It’s unhealthy for any official to hold such a position for an extended period of time. It seems to me the GBCS leaders should be subject to the same type of rotation that our pastors go through.
The late Pope John Paul II was asked why his church was so resistant to changing its teachings in order to get more in line with modern cultural standards. The Pope replied that the church was supposed to be the standard.
The reason the UM church and other mainline denominations are losing membership is not just the go-with-the-flow, progressive, culturally accommodating Winkler-types in leadership. It’s an overall malaise and apathy, even among membership, toward matters of faith. It’s a skepticism, even cynicism, toward traditional moral tenets that has become inculcated in the culture, promoted primarily by contemporary, self-aggrandizing elites in the media, politics, academia, and, we are now seeing, the church itself.
Even if the GBCS “only” get pennies on the dollars, that’s still a lot of money to go to a controversial organization.
Say the average American makes $40K a year, and gives $4K in tithes. If the GBCS “only” gets 3 cents for every dollar, that’s still $120 in a year’s time. Would you give $120 to Planned Parenthood or the Socialist Party USA? Your tithe money going to the GBCS is pretty much the same thing.
The more I think about it the more I wonder why I didn’t leave a year ago when I first found out about the GBCS. Peer pressure, I guess. Most everybody I know goes to the church I go to. I feel compelled by the Holy Spirit to tithe, but I don’t want my money going to an organization that pushes morally repugnant politically positions, even if it is “only” pennies on the dollar.
The “Going Green” series on the official web page is yet another example of the church wasting tithes and offerings. But it made me happy to see some people commenting on this. As one commenter at UMC.org said, the series makes it look like the United Methodist Church is more concerned with social justice issues than the Great Commission.
I wonder if UMC officials will pay attention?
I am a new UMC member and just learned of GBCS etc. I will tithe to Salvation Army before I will tithe to UMC. I must be a good steward of my resources and do not believe Jesus Christ (or John Wesley) would have supported abortion, the merging of the green movement/EPA with faith based initiatives etc.
“Social justice” cannot successfully be legislated. The Bible calls us to be personally charitable as individuals. I don’t believe the Bible advocates big government taxation to support Washington D.C. elites and programs that benefit special interest lobbyists.
Christians are called to give cheerfully and generously. That, however, is not a mandate for government to take more and more from citizens, or for government to take over businesses.
I have loved the UMC all my life; one of my grandfathers was a Methodist minister. However, I have watched our church stray from Biblical teaching for several decades.
I have been a supporter of Good News and other renewal efforts for a LONG time but nothing has happened to rein in the out of control liberals who are destroying the UMC. God must come first in my life, not the denomination — especially one that violates God’s laws, and the UMC is now doing just that.
Several of our church leaders just met last night and we have decided that we can no longer support the UMC and will now search for ways to break away. It breaks my heart to give up, but I can’t justify giving financial support to an organization that violates God’s will.
A church that has fallen from God’s will will not prosper. The rapid decline of the UMC is proof that he is not blessing our actions.
I think not.
The United Methodist Church is just a small part of a 70-million strong, worldwide Methodist body. The loss of the UMC would not signal the end of Methodism, and it might actually bring about a cleansing.
That doesn’t mean one shouldn’t fight for it as long as the Lord leads an individual to do so. The only point at which one must stop fighting is if the Lord removes the candlestick.
When it becomes evident that a church is no longer is a lighthouse, then one is participating in a group in which “the light in them is darkness…how great is that darkness.”
Christians are required to set their light on a lampstand. They must depart when the ability to be a light is removed.
In the Rocky Mountain Conference, the foxes are indeed in charge of the hen house. Unfortunately, the opposition isn’t organized and there seems to be no way to catch the attention of those in charge — i.e., the Bishop, D.S.’s and insiders.
Is there any organizational vehicle we can use to begin a small group of more conservative Methodists, most of whom feel somewhat estranged from their Church?