THE GREAT DIVORCE

 Methodism, like many organizations, has had many splits, fights, and mergers. 

It was a movement that was birthed to offset the lacks found in the contemporary British Church of John Wesley's day in the late 1700's.  He refused to form a new denomination and resisted until near his death when he organized the "Methodist Church."  The term had been an insult for the methodical, logical approach Wesley and his followers used as they lived lives of faith, of discipline, and of purpose. They turned it into a banner of pride...

In the 1800's the new Methodist Church used that methodical approach to plant churches in nearly every county in the growing nation. There were bumps and they usually were places where social values and Christian values came into conflict.

The conflict over the payment of dues to have a pew reserved.

The conflict over the participation of lay people in the decision making of the church.

The conflict over the "conference' rights of self-government and the move toward oversight by a national council of Bishops.  This reflected the struggle between state's rights and the rights of the Federal government in the issue of laws, slave ownership and the continuation of the colonial model of integration of churches (primarily in the North).

The conflict over the issue of slavery and the issue of abolition.

These all led to schisms and branches off the main Methodist tree to create the Methodist Protestant, The Methodist Episcopal, south and several other groups. 

In 1939, several groups merged to form one new Methodist Church. In 1969, Methodism and sister groups of the United Brethren Church and others formed The United Methodist Church. 

In less than thirty years, there were hairline cracks appearing over several issues. Many were theological in nature dealing with the role and authority of scripture in the light of what was known as "Higher Critical" theories of theology and Biblical interpretation. The "Modernist" theology of the 1920's that led to the Scopes Trial had found fertile breeding grounds in the higher institutions of learning and training feeding miniters into the Methodist church world. 

As the 1960's came, the focus shifted from spiritual foundations that provided impetus to social-justice actions, outreaches, and ministries to social-justice foundations replacing the spiritual foundations. There was token recognition of the historic and orthodox creeds and common beliefs of the historic Chirstian faith. Myth replaced belief in the truth of the Bible, metaphors and similes were the lens through which the Holy writ was read.  More and more the emphasis, guidance, and goals were drawn, not from the Bible, but from the denominations "social principles."

The 1960's were the last high point for attendance and church growth for the denomination. Once on that summit, the road forked dramatically, with one path leading toward a continued evolution to a liberal and progressive "post-modern" church and the other path continuing on in the rosy hued belief that the "Church" was moving on into a future filled with spiritual renewal, reinvigorated growth, and increasing meaningful rediscovery of the church Methodist. One was a polished slide that carried the church into the radicalism of socialist principles, deconstructionism, and the strong influences of current culture to define values, ethics, and purpose. 

As society changed, the balance of power, as it were, shifted.  Values long held as important were eroded and destroyed. Some of these were good changes: changes in the legal and social status of ethnic groups, of women, of working people, and a new appreciation of the value of taking care of our world. Others however, were holes in the dam holding back the untamed beasts of human nature and the new idol of the late 20th century was set upright. It was a stature of reflection; it was the great God of "Me" and its minions of greed, situational ethics, and all the darker angels of the human soul. 

If portrayed as fighters in a ring, in one corner would be a nearly powerless Methodist Church clinging to the "form of godliness but lacking the power" and in the other corner the Liberal/Modern/Progressive Organization that elevates social issues over spiritual development and replaces based Christ redemption with acts of social responsibility.  

It is crowded in the corner because behind them stand almost all of societies agencies, the schools, the media, the social influencers, and so many who are content to transform the world without bothering about God transforming the soul. There also stand those who "workers in darkness" and know that the lack of ethics, of love, or compassion and "costly grace" merely makes life easier for them and their pleasure driven, destructive and vampirish agendas.

It was all foretold in the Bible so marginalized, reinterpretated and mythologized   (" 1This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 6For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 7Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 8Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. 9But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was."2 Timothy 3).

Today the issue in the United Methodist Church is painted in slick propaganda speak as a conflict of the "HATERS" and the "LOVERS."  As those who want to stone and kill homosexuals and those who want to welcome them with open arms and no changes are required by God or anyone else. 

It is not that simple, however, because the issue of gender and orientation are the top layer of the deeper issue which is a minimization of the view of scripture as authoritative to modern life. The issue of rebel Bishops, pastors, churches and members who agreed to uphold the teachings of the Bible, the faith and the Methodist Church but who now have decided that the rules no longer apply. They lacked the ethical dignity to remove themselves from a system they could not support but instead played the role of dutiful servant by day and at night were like the "little foxes" that eat away the healthy grape vines and destroy the crop. The took vows they had no intention of keeping. They exercised their hubris by digging in their heels and staying to change (i.e. deconstruct) the historic faith structure instead of launching out, decades ago, to develop a denomination that suited their particular views and lifestyles. 

To some hearing such comments the screams of "hater" and of "bigot" would be hurled but, as if so often the case, the tolerance is short lived. Soon the harassed doubles down in revenge in return using the very tools they complained were used against them.

The cycle of abuse, and all the actions outlines in the scripture above, then come into full play.

Conflict In The Church

For over forty years the United Methodist Church has waged conflict over the primary topic of what role scripture will play in determining the values and praxis of Christian life expressed through the Church.  The subject matter had wavered but have all been drawn from areas of social justice -the battle fields have flexed but the common cause is the tension between those who view scripture and its teachings and expectations as vital and applicable regardless of era and those who view scripture as one dated tool in a chest devoted to improving the plight of humanity via social programs, political activism and philosophical/psychological theories that supplant ancient books.

The most recent topic for this conflict has become the issue of the acceptance of practicing homosexuals to become clergy and the marriage of same-sex couples. It should be noted that at no records have been located that verify homosexuals ever been cast out of the United Methodist Church in the United States. Evidence of those homosexuals who have left churches due to unkindness of members or less than welcoming acceptance in a congregation appear to be no greater than those people generally run off by unkind or unwelcome churches.

There is no provision in the UMC to kick out members, no requirements for membership other than those outlined in the church's Book of Discipline that speak of a willingness to Follow Christ. Church membership vows include only an affirmation that a member will support the local church with their presence, prayers, gifts and witness. There is no affirmation to uphold any particular theology or adhere to specific behaviors as a member. Over the past several decades this essential vagueness when it came to lay participation was lacking enough to cause some wit to affirm that a person could be a UM and believe anything!

The requirements for those who became clergy was - and remains - the most detailed as to requirements, training, and vows.  Among those vows is a clear willingness and dedication to uphold the Book of Discipline and the teachings of the UMC: They vow to uphold the "order, liturgy, doctrine, and discipline, defending it against all doctrines contrary to God's Holy Word, and committing yourself to be accountable with those serving with you, and to the bishop and those who are appointed to supervise your ministry?"

In the birth of Methodism, they were often forced out of congregations of the Church of England and by the birth of the United States they had formed into a Methodist Church due to the conflict over theology and praxis. Although founder John Wesley never left the Church of England, he aided those involved and committed to a life of spiritual commitment and renewal in forming the Methodist Church.

In the 1840's the Methodist Church split over those churches holding that slavery was wrong and those that upheld the concept and practice of slavery. Each offered their own takes on the theological argument about slavery and differed widely as to the praxis of slavery in the Christian life. They split to form the Methodist Episcopal Church and the Methodist Episcopal, South -  united in form of worship but separated by differing theological and praxis views related to a political, social and spiritual issue of slavery.

In the late 1890's and early 1900's the Pentecostal movement emerged, often springing out of Wesleyan Holiness and Methodist groups and churches, they were forced out of the Methodist Churches of that time because the theology and praxis of the those involved in that renewal movement did not agree. These individual left and many united with emerging groups to form now worldwide denominations and movements.

Now, the modern example of this has taken the tension of the 1920's clash over "modernism" with its higher critical views on scripture, its support of social gospel and social improvement over issues such as sin, repentance, or importance of scripture as a guide for modern Christian life and joined this with the social revolution of the 1960's that questioned all traditional models, challenged accepted cultural values, and emphasized a self-absorbed search for self-acutualization and ultimate contentment over values of self-restraint, sacrifice, commitment, and traditional values.

So, it is little wonder that today, in the cusp of the second decade of the 21st century that the UMC is once more facing a watershed moment over theology and praxis. In this time, the focus is not on finding common ground but refusal to yield anything, including compromise or acceptance of the decisions of the representative governing bodies as to what constitutes church law, church regulations, and church theology and praxis.

The decision was made by the 2019 Special Called Conference that the Church would abide by the statements in the BOD regarding the non-ordaination of practicing, self-avowed homosexuals into the clergy and the rules that forbid any clergy or church to perform same-sex marriages.

Here the non-supporters had the clear choice (as they always had) of disaffiliating themselves with a church they did not agree with, could no longer support, and no longer reflected in their theology and praxis.  Just as earlier groups had left and formed churches that better reflected a specific view.

Instead, there has been open rejection of those laws, rules, decisions, and the theology/praxis they include. Open resistance, rebellion, protest and acting out have come to mark every conference and general gathering. 

Labels have emerged and been applied or claimed: Progressives and Liberals who claimed for themselves the label of Mainstream Methodists representing the Centrist or Moderate camps and Conservatives who are labeled sometimes with the label Fundamentalist but who weakly accept the label Traditionalist  and often see themselves as more really more theologically Orthodox.

Progressives/Liberals make demands that while the church awaits yet another General Conference and an assumed conclusion to decades of debate, that no charges be leveled against resisting clergy, protesting  churches or revolutionary bishops. This, while at the same time, churches are openly aligning themselves as resistance churches, protesting conferences, disobedient clergy and compliant bishops. This uneven application of tolerance and judicial waiting goes unacknowledged.

An old saying from the nursery comes to mind: what is s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Also unanswered is the question of why people have chosen to dig in their heels and hostilely take over a denomination they had ceased to agree with , had opened disobeyed, and had no desire to see continue?  Is it merely an application of the social destruction embedded in the economic concept of Creative destruction (German: schöpferische Zerstörung), to social-religious settings?  The Post-Modern need to eradicate all that has gone before in search of creating a new, improved, vision of human life and experience?

Or, simply sinful humanity seeking to have its own way, distinct and apart from the message of the scriptures about the need of repentance and spiritual transformation that leads to scriptural holiness and godly behaviors?

In the end - most conflict in the church and in human settings- can be reduced to the lack of spiritual transformation, the failure to let Christ reshape us into the beings we should be in relationship with Christ, and the inability to follow where that path leads.

REFLECTIONS ON BIBLICAL WOMANHOOD: PART 4

The function of prophecy in the New Testament is similar to that used in the Old Testament. There is a recognized aspect of proclamation, of the spirit of God moving on a person to speak or act in the name of God...as a full member of the Body of Christ...gifted as the Spirit decides...how can a woman be told to be silent or for her responding to the Spirit of God, be called 'shameful'?

A.      Prophecy in the Body of Christ

Much of the letter of 1 Corinthians addresses the gifts of the spirit and among those is the prophetic gift.  The gifts of the spirit are divine special abilities that given to enrich, edify, instruct and guide the people of God as they follow the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The gifts go – as the Holy Spirit decides - to all believers. They are diverse with various functions and administrations, but they are all from the same God (1 Cor. 12: 4-14). The gifts Paul mentions are the “word of wisdom” (v.8); “faith” (v.9); “working of miracles” (v.10); “prophesy” (v.10); “discerning of spirits” (v. 10); “diverse tongues” (v.10); “the interpretation of tongues” (v.10).  Several of those gifts for the body of Christ, and by extension in worship/church, are verbal skills. It is not beyond the realm of expected use that a “word of wisdom” and “prophecy” may be both written and spoken, but diverse tongues and interpretation are definitely speech based. All together in the New Testament context the word of wisdom, prophecy, tongues, and interpretation of those tongues are based on the understanding that people in the assembly will be speaking. Nowhere is there any indication that the Gifts of the Spirit are specific to males and women are exempt. Indeed Paul’s discussion seems to clearly deny that.

The primary word used in most of the following scriptures is once more the term denoting inspired speech, to exercise the prophetic office, to prophesy, and to foretell events (propheteuo #4395).

1.       1 Cor. 12:7-31, especially v. 12 speaks of the “gift of prophecy.”

2.       1 Cor. 13:9 “we prophesy in part…”

3.       1 Cor. 14:1, notes Paul preferring the gift of prophecy over the others that might be sought and may link to 12:31 where he urged seeking after the best gifts.

4.       1 Cor. 14:3-5 continues his argument by citing the prophetic gift was superior because it edified the entire church. Prophecy, as inspired speech that edifies the body, is seem here as the preferred gift. The one who prophesies speaks to “edification, and exhortation, and comfort” (v.3).

5.       1 Cor. 14:19 “I had rather speak five words…that by my voice I might teach (or instruct) others…” He clearly elevates the role of the spoken word ministries, which by definition, include prophecy and teaching. The word used for teach/instruct means to “to inform, to teach, to instruct” (katecheo #2727). It may be inferred that if prophesy is a preferred gift due to it being clearly understood ( v.4) and, that both men and women share in the Spiritual Gifts as divided out by the Holy Spirit, that woman is expected to be verbally part of the worship service in the same manner men are participating by sharing their Gifts to the Body.

6.       After this detailed discussion of the diverse nature of spiritual gifts and value and superiority of the spoken gift of prophecy, comes an abrupt and hard to explain shift. After outlining the manner in which the prophets in the congregation (i.e., the Body of Christ) should function for orderly behavior and after using the same terms for ALL mentions of prophecy or prophetic function or actions, the writer drops a metaphorical hammer. In v. 34 the writer suddenly states: “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded [inserted word] to be under obedience, as saith the Law.” 

7.       The question here in 1 Corinthians 14:34, that consistently goes underexplored is to what ‘Law’ is the writer referring? Most notes in common reference works tend to include Genesis 3:16 “unto the woman he, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow though shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband (or be subject to him) and he shall rule over thee.”  Also, Colossians 3:18 [3:16-25] “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.” Yet, these two verses raise additional questions of lasting theological implications concerning the limits of punishment and redemption. The Genesis text is part of the punishment phase of the Garden Fall of Adam and Eve. Due to the fall from Grace, the man and the woman are each punished (the woman in just a single verse and the man in three verses!).  The Serpent, as Perpetrator and Deceiver, is cursed or at least this is the explanation for the reason serpents are feared and travel on their bellies.  The question then becomes how much of this curse-pronouncement is symbolic and which is actual?  The punishment of Adam involved the ground being cursed, it would be hard to dominate and difficult to work and hard to grow anything, all of which bringing him sorrow and sustenance all of his life. There is no mention of him working animals, learning a craft, sailing ships, building cities, conquering others, enslaving people, or leading a business – yet these are all work areas men have flourished in over time. Yet when woman is defined, she is perpetually kept within a narrow framework of being ‘ruled’ by her husband, being under his ‘subjection’. Her punishment was doubly keen in that she would have a longing or “desire” to be with the man who will, for good or bad, have the power, will rule, and will have dominion over her. Woman was caught securely in a difficult situation because she listened to the deceptions of the serpent she ate of the forbidden Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge and then offered the same to Adam. It is interesting to note that when God was doing the cursing and punishments the first one addressed was the Serpent cursed above “all cattle and beasts of the field”, and he would crawl on his belly and eat dust (v.14). Of note, God would “put enmity between the serpent and the woman for all time (v.15) and a promise that her seed would “bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel” (v.15), considered a prophetic reference to the future Messiah. Then the writer outlines the broad image of a different life for the man and the woman outside the Edenic conditions of the Garden. The punishments are the explanations for why women suffer in childbirth, parenting and why, although their men treat them poorly, they still stay with them. They are teaching moments to explain what happens when people willfully do what is wrong. They explain why men labor in making a living by toiling long hours with little reward and why life is a struggle and followed by death. In the New Testament framework of 1 Corinthians this appeal to a ‘Law’ must be explained as it appears inconsistent with other Pauline writings. Note in the version of the King James Bible that the word “commanded” has been inserted and is not found in other translations indicating a translational word choice not indicated by the text. Why would Paul write in Romans 10:4 that “Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to everyone that believeth” or in Galatians 5:18 “..if you be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the Law” or Romans 6:14 “For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.” How to reconcile all of these to a  position based on “saith the Law” in 1 Corinthians 14:34, as well as in Ephesians 5:15-33 and others that make a dramatic statement about the issue of ‘submission’ by women. The only answer is that there is more to these sections than mere permissive statements for husbands to have power over their wives and for wives to be silent in church.

REFLECTIONS ON BIBLICAL WOMANHOOD: PART 3

Part 3 – The Prophetic Woman and Church

A.      The Prophetic Woman in the Old Testament

One issue that may help to clarify the definition of ‘Biblical Womanhood’ is that of the prophetic woman seen in the Bible. Old Testament references clearly outline women serving in the office of prophet throughout its pages.

The word in the Old Testament Hebrew was ‘Nbiyah’ (nbiyah, Strongs #5031) meaning ‘prophetess’ a feminine form of ‘prophet’. This also meant an ‘inspired woman’ inferring speaking or actions. A prophet appears to have functioned as one who calls people to their faithful responses, prods people to follow God and reminds people of the consequences of failing to rely on God and keep his commandments. Strong’s adds “by association a prophet’s wife": yet not all women were married to a prophet so this is questionable translation selection.

1.       Miriam, sister of Moses and Aaron (Exodus 15:20) is called a prophet (nbiyah, Strongs #5031). As Moses led the people in a song of praise for their salvation and “…Miriam the prophetess…took a timbrel in her hand: and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dances.” Later on scriptures state God sent Moses, Aaron and Miriam to 'lead' the people.

2.       Deborah, described as wife, judge and prophet (Judges 4:4). “Deborah, a prophetess,[ (nbiyah, Strongs #5031)] the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at this time. And she dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in mount Ephraim: and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment.” (v.4-5). She brought Barak from Kedeshnaphtali (some distance to the north) to her. She challenged him to fulfill the command of God with an army, Barak refused to go unless she accompanied him, but Deborah said she would go but it would not matter because God had already decided that the fate and the  opposing leader would fall by the hand of a woman (v.9).

3.       Huldah, prophetess (nbiyah, Strongs #5031) and wife of Shallum, keeper of the wardrobe.  King Josiah was rebuilding the temple. Hilkiah the priest, who was related to the prophet Jeremiah and to Huldah's husband,  took the book of the law discovered to the Scribe Shapan, who in turn brought it to the attention of the King.  When the King heard the words he immediately “rent his clothes” and commanded the priest to go “inquire of the Lord” brought the recovered book of the law She lived in the “College” or the “Second District.” Early maps of the temple region identify one gate as “Huldah’s Gate”….

4.       Noadiah (Neh.6:14) also utilizes the same term (nbiyah, Strongs #5031) in reference to this member of the prophetic order.

B.      The Prophetic Woman in the New Testament

Evidence of the continuing the tradition seen in the Old Testament are part of the New Testament are seen very early in the Gospels.

1.       Anna in Luke 2: 36, “And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanumel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and lived with an husband seven years from her virginity; and she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fasting and prayers night and day.” The word used in the Greek was Prophetis (#4398, Strong’s) and is used to describe one who is a ‘female prophet/foreteller’.

2.       The Seven daughters of Philip in Acts 21:9 are described as prophets (propheteuo, #4395) by a word meaning one  who ‘foretells events, ‘speaks under inspiration’, ‘ i.e. prophesy’, and to ‘exercise the prophetic office’.

3.       “Your Sons and Daughters will Prophecy” from Acts 2:17 (propheteuo, #4395) repeats the prophecy from Joel 2:28 with a word that means to “speak under inspiration.” Note too that Acts 2 understands the future prophecy of Joel to have come to pass :”but this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel” (v. 16).

4.       “Women Praying and Prophesying” in 1 Corinthians 11:4-5 see the same term used (propheteuo, #4395) to refer to those who are functioning as prophets regardless of gender: “Every man praying or prophesying…” (v.4) and “…every woman that prayeth or prophesieth…” (v.5).