logo

Letters
Cheers and Jeers

Temperance and the Board of Church and Society
In the January/February 2008 issue of Good News there was an article by Elizabeth Kittle on the Book of Resolutions. She asks: “How have a few groups managed to be so successful in getting their legislation passed at General Conference.” Her answer was: “....strategic planning, powerful positioning and unlimited access to the delegates.” I know from experience that this is true.

As a “visitor” I have paid my way to General Conference in 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004. I was there to ask for passage of a petition that would take the alcohol work away from the General Board of Church and Society (GBCS) and establish an independent body which would do the work of the former Board of Temperance.

The petition was always assigned to the Committee on Independent Commissions. Nevertheless, GBCS found it and opposed it. A member of the staff always showed up to say GBCS should keep that work even though they are doing virtually nothing on the alcohol issue. It was considered so important that in 1988 the GBCS Treasurer came to oppose me. So did the General Secretary of GBCS in 1992 even though there were 1500 petitions (1992 Daily Christian Advocate, Daily Edition, p. 711) from 34 states asking for this action.

In 2004 I was again opposed by the General Secretary of GBCS. My experience is that GBCS has little concern or interest in the problems of alcohol in our society but boy do they love the approximately $1,000,000 per year they get from the Board of Temperance Trust. That is why they will say and promise anything to keep the alcohol work at Church and Society. The problem is they never keep their promises.

Howard Lydick
Richardson, Texas

Peck’s critique
As I read J. Richard Peck’s article in the 40th anniversary edition of Good News I felt like I had stepped into a time machine and been carried back to a place when some in the United Methodist Church made broad accusations about evangelicals and painted them as fear mongers determined to destroy our great church. There were many things in Peck’s article I could comment on but I will confine my remarks to those regarding The Mission Society which I am privileged to serve as its president and CEO.

Peck alleges that it was a mistake for Good News to establish The Mission Society. Let me clarify the situation: Good News did not found The Mission Society. The Mission Society came into existence when a group of pastors and laity, representing some of the largest UM churches, came together in response to a paper by Dr. Gerald Anderson, noted missiologist and former missionary with General Board of Global Ministries (GBGM), suggesting that the UM Church could and should have two mission agencies. Over a period of time and after much discussion and prayer this group felt a strong leading of God to establish The Mission Society. Upon The Mission Society’s founding, Good News offered to transfer operations and staff of the Evangelical Missions Council to aid Dr. H.T. Maclin, founding president of The Mission Society and former GBGM missionary, in the establishment of this new agency. It should be noted that the Evangelical Missions Council prior to its transfer was not a mission agency. It was an arm of Good News devoted to the promotion of missions from an evangelical perspective in the UM Church.

I agree with Peck that there were individuals within the UM Church that not only regretted but were vehemently opposed to the creation of a new mission agency. They fervently believed that GBGM was the only mission agency needed within our church and that those of us who believed in a different path for missions were simply misguided and destructive. As the same time, there were many individuals in the UM Church that wanted an agency with a more pronounced evangelical agenda. As Peck rightly points out, there are liberals and evangelicals within our great church. In recognition of this I would ask the simple question, “What is wrong with the idea that there should be an avenue for missions for evangelicals as well as liberals?”

Unfortunately, Peck and others would have us ignore our theological differences and would castigate those who wanted an alternative mission agency consistent with their theological perspective. They postulated an either/or response to the creation of The Mission Society rather than a both/and. If the creation of The Mission Society has fueled discord in the UM Church, I fail to see how it is at the hands of The Mission Society.

Peck alleges that conflicts between Global Ministries and The Mission Society have reduced the effectiveness of each. I am unsure how he arrived at this allegation. I cannot respond to it from a GBGM perspective, but The Mission Society just celebrated its 24th birthday. We currently have over 225 missionaries on the field and at our board meeting this month we will be commissioning 22 more. We are in ministry in 32 countries working with over 3,500 nationals on a full time basis. We have established hospitals, schools, seminaries, economic development programs, and Methodist denominations in places where there had not been a Methodist presence before.

This ministry has been done in culturally appropriate ways with a desire to empower nationals and build towards their self-sufficiency. All of these ministries, and numerous others not named, have a strong commitment to sharing the gospel and we have seen thousands come to Christ over our 24 years of existence. This ministry has been done on a budget that in 2007 was slightly over $11 million dollars—miniscule compared to GBGM’s budget. It has been done with one of the best home office personnel to missionary ratios in the world of missions. Further, all of the funds have come from the support of loyal individuals without denominational support or the siphoning of funds from GBGM as Peck alleges. By any measurement, The Mission Society is highly effective in terms of ministry provided and funds expended!

As to the issue of conflict between The Mission Society and the GBGM, since its inception The Mission Society has followed the practice of not going into areas in which GBGM has a presence unless invited by the leadership of the autonomous Methodist church. We instituted this policy in the desire of avoiding conflict within the UM Church.

Peck implies that the problems within the autonomous Methodist church in Bolivia were the result of The Mission Society’s involvement. Nothing could be farther from the truth. In point of fact, The Mission Society’s so-called “involvement” in Bolivia was at the request of the Bolivian church and was limited to several visits by staff and one nominal grant to the Bolivian church. No personnel from The Mission Society ever served in Bolivia. The problems within the Evangelical Methodist Church of Bolivia were rooted in a power struggle that was clothed in charges of sexual harassment and misuse of funds. To state that the violence that broke out and the injury of individuals was the fault of The Mission Society is a falsehood at best and a scurrilous unsupported attack at worst.

As a journalist, I would expect Mr. Peck to deal in factual truth rather than institutional propaganda. Unfortunately this is not the case.

Phil Granger
Elder, North Indiana Conference
The United Methodist Church



Click here to send your response plus the title of this article to us at Good News.

Good News | 308 East Main St. | P.O. Box 150 | Wilmore, KY 40390 | 859-858-4661 | 1-800-487-7784
info@goodnewsmag.org | About Us | ©2007 Good News magazine