logo

Letters
News, Views, and Uproars


Bapto-Methodists

I was more than disappointed that your cover story ("Football, Fame, and Faith: Talking with Terry Bradshaw") was on a professing Baptist who was actually centerpiece quoted as saying, "Everybody's Baptist here in the South except those who've been messed with." Makes me wonder if the real intention of the Good News folks is to turn us Methodists into Bapto-Methodists on the way to becoming actual Baptists, just with a different name. That's not the church I signed up to pastor! Thank goodness for your article on Will Willimon whose message is entirely different!

Susie Knedlik
Propst Memorial UM Church
Millport, Alabama

 

Extremely disappointing

As one who was delighted at the election of William Willimon to the episcopacy I am sorry to have to say that I thought Bishop Willimon's responses in George Mitrovich's interview ("A Conversation Among Friends"), published in the March/April issue, were extremely disappointing.

Bishop Willimon is, of course, an entertaining writer, so we ought not be put off by a certain stylistic lightness. But serious questions to those new to the episcopacy ought not be turned aside with cutesy answers too frequently. Far too often, nice turns of phrase were allowed to distract from substantial issues and substantial questions.

Perhaps most disturbing was still another of those off-handed comments that we have been hearing from bishops now for years, that somehow the problem for United Methodism lies in an unmotivated and ineffective clergy.

Bishop Willimon's flip observation that the problem in the North Alabama Conference is not too many gay applicants for ordination, but too many mediocre heterosexuals, is an arrogant and unproven aside that may just reveal a not very helpful (not to mention respectful) attitude toward the men and women who will in years to come provide the bishop's shock troops.

 That statement is certainly no more true than the observation that the problem for United Methodism is too many mediocre applicants for bishop. Both are observations perhaps better kept to ourselves.

Philip M. Niblack
Union-in-St. Louis UM Church
St. Louis, Missouri

 

Leader or manager?

The interview with Bishop Willimon was interesting and revealing. The Good News editors seem to feel he's "orthodox" and attempts to uphold biblical doctrines, at least in some areas. He sees himself as a "leader" and not a "manager." He is also evasive, however, when asked direct questions about homosexuality and the United Methodist Church. Instead of giving a direct biblical response, he brings up church and social deficiencies in other areas, or claims it isn't an issue in our church worthy of discussion. He also falls back on the tired old argument that Jesus (the Word in the Old and New Testaments) didn't address the subject.

The Bible doesn't mince words about homosexuality, nor does it dwell on the subject. It's very clear, in both the Old and New Testaments, on all sin. In fact, we wouldn't truly know what sin is (nor the remedy) without the Bible to define it for us (Romans 7:7). So, it seems odd that Bishop Willimon is so evasive on this particular subject. Could it be that, while personally against ordination of practicing homosexuals, he's trying not to offend his liberal colleagues who endorse it?

Later in the article, Bishop Willimon attempts to cut off debate on the questions about homosexuality by stating, "I support whatever General Conference says on any subject and will do my best to carry out the will of our church on this or any other matter. I work for the General Conference." This sounds more like a "manager" than a "leader." How much better it would have been if Bishop Willimon could have said, "I support whatever the Bible says on any subject and will do my best to carry out the will of God on this or any other matter. I work for the Lord."

We need bishops who are sold out for the Lord and devoted to clear biblical teachings and doctrines. The liberals in our church have leaders who are sold out to pushing their various non-biblical social agendas. People who would be called orthodox need to be sold out for Christ, and the whole of God's Word.

God is loving, gracious, merciful, and kind, and wants to give us eternal life (John 3:16). But, the same God is also zealous, righteous, perfect, and calls his followers to a very high standard, and his teachers to an even higher standard. We have no record of Jesus excoriating the political system of his day, or the Roman Empire, or the common people for that matter. However, Jesus repeatedly rebuked the religious leaders for leading the people astray (Matthew 23) or forgetting their "first love" (Revelations 2:4). Those who would be called teachers are held to a higher standard (James 3:1).

We can only pray that Bishop Willimon will listen to God's call for our church as revealed in Scripture, and not to the calls of his liberal friends and colleagues who wish to make the church more like the world around us.

Bill Brown
Virginia

 

Ash-less Wednesday

Lauren R. Winner calls getting ashes on Ash Wednesday bold ("Ash Wednesday Evangelism"). At her university, perhaps. Among people hostile to Christianity (e.g., Saudi Arabia) it might be brave (a death-wish?). But some might call it arrogant: "Admire my holiness. I got ashes!"

Once or twice I've received ashes. A mistake, I think now.

I've had United Methodist pastors tell me (foreign-born clergy mostly, rookie United Methodists, speaking from their parochialism and limited experience), "We've always done ashes on Ash Wednesday. Ash Wednesday without ashes is an oxymoron."

Untrue. Episcopalians first provided ash ceremonies in 1970. We started later, as an option. Protestantism's norm was an ash-less Ash Wednesday. Some may sincerely believe otherwise, but it's ignorant and false, impeaching our witness.

Growing up in a Catholic neighborhood in the 1960s, I figured that someone asked my Evangelical United Brethren pastor dad why we didn't do ashes. He said the question never came up. His theology courses ignored it. It was so foreign to our thinking, that nobody asked.

I've challenged ash-promoting pastors to square ashes with Ash Wednesday's Gospel lesson, Matthew 6:1-6, 16-18 (especially vv. 16-18, see also Wesley's comments on the verses in his Sermons and Notes). They sidestep or give me a condescending pat on the head and mumble incantations about its being "meaningful."

Each believer must decide whether to receive ashes or not. But until I find persuasive scriptural reasons for it, I won't.

Jonathan Carlsen
Arcadia, Florida

 

Vows at risk?

So, James V. Heidinger II thinks that our church membership vows are at risk ("United Methodism's Vows At Risk"). I wonder if he's really read them lately. I don't think they are at risk at all. What is at risk in Dr. Heidinger's expressed viewpoint is a truly New Testament understanding and doctrine of sin. (Actually, I do remember that word and still talk about it.) Heidinger asks the question, "Does anyone who wished to join, regardless of behavior, practice, or lifestyle, have an unquestioned right to be received into membership?" He replies to his rhetorical question by saying, "Some people say yes...." I am unapologetically one of those persons not because it "has always been the church's practice," but because of my understanding of sin.

We are all sinners (Romans 3:23). And, it goes without saying that all who come to take membership vows should be "seeking to be saved from their sins." What the church has recognized over the centuries is that both the revealing of sin to the sinner, and the transformation of the sinner into Christlikeness is finally the work of God. Furthermore, it is an on-going, life-long work. John Wesley called that sanctification. 

Heidinger claims that the "critical issue" at stake in the debate is whether "pastors must accept unrepentant sinners into the membership of our churches." The answer is yes. Of course they must, because the New Testament recognizes that there isn't any other kind of sinner! The blindness to our own sin is part and parcel of the sin that infects us all. All of us sinners who come to profess our trust in Christ's grace and promise to serve him as our Lord are repentant of our sin to the degree that Christ's grace has revealed it to us as sin, and unrepentant of the sin in us that we are not yet able to see as such. Again, it is our hope and belief that more of that will be revealed to each one's on-going relationship with Christ.

I personally know white supremacists who are members of the UM Church. I personally know people who are war mongers who are members of the UM Church, even though our Discipline states that "war is incompatible with the teachings and example of Christ." I personally know members of the UM Church who are unrepentant about their excessive use of tobacco and alcohol. Surely a biblical understanding of the body as the temple of God would recognize such excessive use of harmful substances as sinful.

I can assure you that I know a number of United Methodists who are unrepentant about holding onto their money. Perhaps Heidinger would also have us deny membership to all of these folks as well? Or, perhaps since they're already on our rolls, he would have us remove them.

Jesus recognized that the relationship between forgiveness and repentance is that forgiveness comes first! Grace and forgiveness are what remove the blinders from our eyes so that we can more clearly see what separates us from God (that is, our sin) and repent. Heidinger, on the other hand, seems to be for a position that states that certain unrepented for sins warrant cutting off a relationship with a saving, sanctifying God before it gets started, or at least before it gets officially recognized and affirmed. I think we can trust God more than that. Heidinger seems to think that the church needs to make sure God does his work to our specifications-an urge I'm fairly certain that the New Testament recognizes as sinful.

I think indeed we do need to talk about sin, because it is a lot more pervasive and insidious than Heidinger gives it credit for. But, the good news for our gay brothers and sisters, and for Heidinger, and for me, is that God's saving and sanctifying grace is sufficient and more pervasive still. Thank God for that, and thank God for our Council of Bishops who still believe that.

David Reynolds
Via email



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