A UMNS Report
By Barbara Dunlap-Berg*
Evangelical United Methodist groups are teaming up with evangelical groups in other mainline Protestant denominations to share resources.
Participants in the Ecumenical Leadership Summit Oct. 22-25 in Dallas represent United Methodist, Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian and reformed traditions. A web-only photo courtesy of the American Anglican Council.
Some of these evangelicals are working toward reform within their denominations. Others are in the process of splitting to form new denominations.
The leaders have covenanted to engage in joint ministries and to explore cooperatively planting churches and sending missionaries, offering incubator facilities to support new church plants, providing theological education and sharing space with dislocated congregations.
“What we hope to learn from each other is the ‘how’ of ministering that message in our 21st century North American culture,” said the Rev. Thomas Lambrecht, vice president of Good News, an unofficial evangelical caucus of United Methodists. “Through sharing, support and cross-fertilization, we believe we can be more effective in contemporary ministry, building vital congregations to make disciples for the transformation of the world.”
He was part of an ecumenical summit of 32 evangelical leaders from 14 United Methodist, Anglican, Lutheran and Presbyterian churches and organizations who affirmed common theological ground and sought practical ways of working together during a late October conference in Dallas.
The unofficial United Methodist caucuses represented included Good News, The Institute on Religion and Democracy, The Confessing Movement within The United Methodist Church and Lifewatch (Taskforce of United Methodists on Abortion and Sexuality).
The ecumenical group’s goal is not to create a new United Methodist or evangelical super-denomination but, rather, a network to address common issues and concerns, Lambrecht said.
“We believe in a type of ecumenism that is not institutional, but organic, built on partnerships and networks that can be of mutual benefit,” he said.
Search for theological consistency
However, Lambrecht noted that one challenge he believes the denomination faces is its broad theological spectrum.
The United Methodist Church is “the opposite of McDonald’s, where every restaurant offers the same menu and experience,” he said.
That lack of consistency, he continued, contributes to the denomination’s greatest challenge, which is “how to create growing, vital faith communities in a culture that has changed. One of the barriers to our doing that is the lack of a common theological message. Because of our diversity of beliefs, we have many different messages coming out of local churches and pastors.
“The denominational label doesn’t really tell you what you will be getting if you attend one of our churches. With such diversity, it is difficult to come up with a unified strategy to reach our culture for Christ.”
Rather than being in competition with United Methodist boards and agencies, Lambrecht said the ecumenical group envisions participating in experiences that denominational agencies do not offer. The goal, he added, is to share resources and experiences. “We do not anticipate diverting dollars or support from United Methodist programs, but offering additional alternatives.
“It is also true,” he said, “that some of our denominational ‘official’ experiences are not theologically congenial for evangelicals. The ecumenical experiences provide another option that for some might be more in line with their evangelical theology. Where appropriate, we hope to be able to include United Methodist agency staff in these shared ecumenical experiences.”
‘Encouraged’ by the future
Representatives of Institute of Religion And Democracy, the American Anglican Council, the North American Lutheran Church and the Presbyterian Lay Committee organized the summit. All have been part of an evangelical ecumenical group called the Association for Church Renewal, which consisted of renewal leaders from several mainline denominations.
The Rev. Thomas Lambrecht. A UMNS photo by Mike DuBose.
Lambrecht said that when Association of Church Renewal formed, all of the renewal groups were still working toward reform within their denominations. Since then, several — namely those in the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) — have spawned new, independent denominations.
“It was thought that a new initiative was needed that could take account of that new reality and assist us in working together for spiritual renewal and growing vitality in whatever denominational setting we find ourselves,” he said.
Lambrecht said he does not see evangelicals within The United Methodist Church moving toward a split.
“Our U.M. situation, he said, “is much different from most of the others, in that we have not reached a breaking point for evangelicals. In fact, we are quite encouraged about the future we see in our denomination.”
He said recent gatherings of General Conference, the denomination’s top lawmaking body, have upheld “the authority of Scripture and our moral teachings.” He added church leaders “finally getting serious about addressing our membership decline and wanting to work diligently to turn things around” indicate “a greater openness to what evangelicals have to offer,” he said.
Participants formed working groups, listened to plenary sessions and affirmed an ecumenical statement. While all of the leaders endorsed the statement, some did so as individuals rather than on behalf of their respective churches or organizations, Lambrecht said.
‘Being the church together’
The statement says the new group comes from diverse Christian traditions but is united in the Spirit. While the signatories acknowledge “the imperfections of Christian institutions and the broken nature of our collective witness to the world,” the signers also “commit to strive together for a faithful way of being the Church together. Our hearts are burdened for the millions of our neighbors who are estranged from God and the Church.”
The statement addresses two issues that have been a source of tension and even schism in their respective denominations — human sexuality and abortion. The statement defines marriage as between one man and one woman and affirms, “Every human life is a gift from God to be cherished and respected from conception to natural death.”
“The church should speak only on the issues that follow directly from core Christian moral convictions,” the statement said.
Among the others it identifies are upholding the dignity of each person as created in God’s image, addressing the needs and expanding the opportunities of the poor, strengthening the bonds between parents and children and defending the free exercise of religion in North America and around the world.
Summit participants plan a 2013 summit and hope to piggyback on an Anglican church-planting event in Wheaton, Ill.
They also want to address the issue of sex trafficking. Lambrecht said, “I personally hope we can involve our United Methodist agency staff in both of those experiences.”
*Dunlap-Berg is internal content editor for United Methodist Communications, Nashville, Tenn.
18 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
Erik Alsgaard
November 13, 2012 at 3:14 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Lambrecht says that one of the greatest challenges his group faces is “how to create growing, vital faith communities in a culture that has changed.” Judging by the photo that accompanies this story — with three women and one person of color in a group shot of 27 people — they have some work to do in this very area, as does our own United Methodist Church. Sadly, 11 a.m. still remains the most segregated hour in the United States, IMHO.
Stephen Mott
November 14, 2012 at 6:14 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Another form of ecumenism.
Jim Norton
November 14, 2012 at 9:15 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Interesting development, especially in light of the recent election. The IRD and its constituent bodies (such as Good News in the UMC), accepting massive funding from the right-wing plutocrats, have (unwittingly, I think) become identified with anti-intellectual, regressive and arrogant attempts to control and have power over people’s hearts and minds. The election just passed demonstrates that the majority of the country is fed up with such militancy. Lambrecht is correct in pointing out the diversity within the UMC, which has always been true of our denomination. We are not a doctrinaire tradition as are some in the Protestant (and Catholic) lines. John Wesley argued that beyond certain basic Christian principles, we are to “think and let think.” Having endured bullish Good News representatives at far too many annual conference sessions, I cannot help being cynical about what now seems to be an attempt to slip in through a back door an insistence on a kind of conformity that has never been characteristic of Methodism.
Starr Weaver
November 19, 2012 at 9:06 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Having read the Good News magazine for the past few years, I would have to agree with your comment about the back door. I also take exception to what seems to me to be the Good News position that they are absolutely correct in their stance and the implication that you need to believe the same to be a United Methodist. I wish the church would stop sitting on the fence and just take a stance, one way or the other. The ones who cannot agree with that “official stance” whatever it may be, can then make a decision to leave this denomination – however painful that might be. Unfortunately, progress and change our very often painful.
Morris Taber
November 19, 2012 at 10:02 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I have the distinct feeling that the Good News movement would like nothing better than for the rest of UMs who disagree with them to leave. That would purge the UMC of its …… Since the denomination owns everything, it would mean leaving them in complete control of everything. Our congregation is 180+ years old; why should we be forced to knuckle under or leave our building and resources behind. Not a good option.
Jim Norton
November 20, 2012 at 6:54 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Thanks for your observation, Starr. My suspicion is that economic realities would prevent the kind of integral response you advocate, though I agree. Morris is probably correct, unfortunately; their agenda has more to do with being able to take control of the entire denomination. If that were to happen, the extreme right would quash the Wesleyan insistence on the willingness to experiment with different ways of serving others and working toward social justice. And it would mean a return to the dark ages of attempting to have power in the church through fear-mongering. Consequently, an even larger gap between church/world would result. I am amazed at the level of mean-spriitedness such extremists exude.
Morris Taber
November 14, 2012 at 4:53 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
“Think and let think” certainly appeals to me. I agree with Jim’s statements about our denomination’s honored tradition of diversity. May we please have more of it! While I am perfectly willing to let others interpret the Bible based upon their understanding of it, I resent having them trying to force everybody in the UMC to either agree or be branded as less Christian or even fallen away.
James Jones
November 15, 2012 at 8:32 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Looks like a framework for a “grand realignment” that was obvious to me in my first appointment in 1988. Half of my congregation was all pumped up on “the rapture is coming in September because it is 40 years since the restoration of Israel”. The other half thought that kind of thinking was silly. Huge chunks of Methodists now are against infant baptism, etc. And pastors avoid all this if possible because they fear angry reactions if they don’t “believe the Bible”.
Rev. Michael L. Kundrat
November 15, 2012 at 10:05 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
….the world leads and United Methodists march in step to the liberal drum majors. If seclar society says it’s good, it must be??
Morris Taber
November 15, 2012 at 10:24 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Not certain what is “seclar” society other than a theological punching bag. We have a chance to apply reason and logic to knowledge as seen/known thousands of years ago. Or we can join the flat-earth society that still has its head in the sand.
Jim Norton
November 20, 2012 at 7:11 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Oh, Morris, nice rejoinder! How easily we forget the Wesleyan quadrilaterial: scripture (of course), but also and equally, tradition, experience and REASON. Sometimes it seems that we overlook the evidences within the scriptures themselves at how people’s minds were changed, or how their understanding evolved over time. The task is not to rigidly adhere to our selection of what the scriptures say, but to reappropriate the Word in terms that make sense today. Is there myth in the Bible? Of course, there is! But the legends can impart important truth. Even Jesus responded to different people inquiring about salvation in different ways according to what he perceived was the relevant factor in each situation.(ex. rich young ruler–no word here about being born again). Sticking our heads in the sand…..hmmmm, is that another way of referring to escapist religion?
Clark
December 6, 2012 at 9:21 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
The orthodox members of these various denominations are feed up with those who wish to transform God into their own image. We believe that the New Testament outlines in clear terms God’s expectations for all of His people. It is a simple message, in plain language, that demands that we, from our own free will, accept Jesus as our God and savior and turn from our sins. Those who wish to wash away the sins articulated by Jesus and his Disciples to accommodate people who wish to proclaim Jesus while ignoring his commands are setting themselves up as false teachers.
Our orthodox battle is for the souls of our brothers and sisters and we believe that proclaiming God’s word as given through the New Testament is a good, perfect, and sufficient source for accomplishing that goal.
Clark
December 6, 2012 at 9:28 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
If you truly believe what you just wrote then you need to proclaim that you are ready to establish a new religion based on whatever feelings you have and that religion will be partly based on Biblical truths, thoughts from other religions, and whatever you chose to make up based on what makes you feel good today.
The intelligence we use to take the timeless teachings of Christ and help people understand their relevance for these lives today is what separates true believers from the modern age false-teachers.
Morris Taber
December 6, 2012 at 11:53 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Not certain, Clark, to whom you addressed this. However, two observations: 1. Claims of orthodoxy at the expense of everybody who disagreed even a bit have been perniciously present from the earliest Church. Major differences of belief and practice are not new and have existed since the beginning. Do you exclude these century old differences as being les Christian? Exclusivity as you seem to state it is simply not Christian. 2. follows from this. You missed a key word in Jim Norton’s call to a better use of Wesley’s quadrilateral to avoid a rigid adherence to OUR own interpretation. In other words, how can any of us set ourselves up as a Pope to be so certain that our own interpretation is the “orthodox” and every body else is promoting some new religion. Cannot you possibly conceive that Maybe others can interpret Christ’s teachings and leadership even somewhat differently than you do?
Jim Norton
December 6, 2012 at 1:12 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I appreciate your response to Clark, Morris, but having dealt with “true believers” over 46 years in parish ministry, I’ve become convinced that the reason, tradition and experience roles Wesley argued were necessary for an adequate reappropriation of our faith is forbidden in some “Methodist?” circles. You are correct in saying that differences have always been a part of Christian faith. St. Paul, at first, (for example) advised avoiding marriage, since the eschaton was just around the corner. Paul’s later writings, however, find him backpeddaling from his “true” belief and readjusting to fit a new circumstance. The Gospels & Acts demonstrate an evolving understanding of how Jesus became God’s son from Peter’s sermon in Acts 2 suggesting that Jesus was adopted at the time of the crucifixion, through Mark’s indication of sonship occurring at the time of Jesus’ baptism, then Matthew & Luke’s identifying Jesus’ semi-divine conception as the point in which he became God’s Son (a popular notion in those days for explaining why famous people were famous), and finally John’s affirmation that Jesus always co-existed with God. Like it or not, different people had different ideas, and there are evolutionary indications of how those ideas developed. But, alas, I’m rather pessimistic about engaging in such honest faith struggles with those on the far right religiously.
Morris Taber
December 6, 2012 at 1:53 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Your Biblical knowledge is far more detailed than mine, but we both know that the Bible is full of the fluidity in the gradual changes in Human understandings about God, hence it is extremely dangerous to pick out one spot and pronounce it to be God’s word. People have killed over that.
I will settle for simply noting that we appear to be closer to the “Wesleyan tradition” by trying to work with all four parts than are some of those who shout so loud about it, but bog down and stop after the first two — “Don’t bother me with facts, my mind is made up!’
Jim Norton
December 6, 2012 at 8:38 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Amen!
Peace And Conflict Resolution
February 11, 2013 at 8:15 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
It is not the masses that must submit to the Fundamental-Dogmatists but the Dogmatists to Heaven: every difficulty between the masses and the Dogmatists that split our church will be resolved only after the return of the Church to the oldest language of God taught by Christ’s all inclusive love and compassion that is proper.
That which is not needed, that which Christ chose not to address, eventually will drift and fall away from the essential lasting core of love, compassion, and tolerance. This is the essense of the light of God that opens all understanding.
http://tinyurl.com/axtl9d9