By Bishop Peggy Johnson
“God’s divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of God, who called us to His own glory and excellence, by which God has granted to us His precious and very great promises, so that through them, you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire.
“For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness and godliness with brotherly affection and brotherly affection with love. For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.” 2 Peter 1:3-8
The Broadway musical “Hello Dolly” is back in New York City, starring Bette Midler as the leading lady. I can actually boast that I saw Carol Channing perform this role in 1968 when I was in high school on a field trip to the United Nations building. Now to see it again 40 years later does make me feel a bit old.
But the signature love song in this musical is “It Only Takes a Moment.” It speaks of romantic love: “It only takes a moment for your eyes to meet, and then your heart knows in a moment you will never be alone again.” The leading lady and man croon together, “It only takes a moment to be loved a whole life long.”
United Methodists believe in moments too: moments of experiencing for the first time God’s wooing grace, moments of conviction of sin and repentance, moments of conversion to faith in Jesus Christ, and one special moment that happened to our founder, John Wesley, at a Bible study on London’s Aldersgate Street nearly three centuries ago.
John Wesley was raised in the Anglican Church and was a priest and the son of an Anglican priest. But when he was 35 years old he was struggling with his faith.
As the story goes on May 24, 1738, he went reluctantly to a Bible study and prayer meeting on Aldersgate Street in London. Someone read from Martin Luther’s “Preface to the Epistle to the Romans.”
John writes in his diary “About 8:45 PM, while he was describing the change which God works in the heart through faith in Christ, I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone, for salvation and an assurance was given me that He had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death.”
This was Wesley’s defining moment of assurance of salvation and freedom from sin and death. What he experienced was what St. Peter describes as “the precious and great promises of God.”
In this moment he felt the power of the Holy Spirit to preach salvation. From that day on he dedicated his life to proclaiming that good news around England to anyone who would listen. They say he preached as if he were “out of breath in pursuit of souls.”
Eventually, he inspired a movement that found its way to America when Wesley sent his preachers to “spread Scriptural Holiness” across the continent.
United Methodists observe Aldersgate Sunday every year around the 24th day of May. We do this to remind people of the love of God for everyone and that all can be heirs of God’s salvation through Jesus Christ and be blessedly assured of the same.
It is also a time for us to rededicate our lives to not only spreading the gospel but being the loving presence of Jesus Christ out in the world. This is another important thing to know about John Wesley:
He preached conversion but also sanctification: that is the Holy Spirit working on one’s soul to improve one’s character and obedience to God through prayer, study of the scripture, accountability groups, the sacraments, and fasting. He called this personal holiness.
The passage above, from 2 Peter 1:3-8 describes it well. We are to supplement our faith with virtue, knowledge, self-control, steadfastness, godliness, brotherly and sisterly affection, and love. This personal holiness is vitally important because it gives us strength and direction for the works of Christ out in the world.
Wesley calls that “social holiness.” It means being a “sermon in shoes” through sacrificial giving of ourselves to the poor, to minister to those in prisons, to visit the sick, and to speak out on social justice issues for those without a voice.
There are many ways to give yourself away for the love of God’s children. This is the heart of mission. And as we engage in mission, God’s witness increases and we decrease. Mission is the fire and we are merely the candle.
When I was in seminary back in the late 1970’s, there was an early, heavy snow storm. Some seminary students—being seminary students—went out to throw snowballs and make snowmen, rather than study in the library. One of the students, an amazing artist, crafted a snowman that looked exactly like John Wesley. We all commented on this incredible work of art.
A few days later, when the autumn sun returned, the snowman had melted some, and there appeared a sign on the sculpture: “My heart was strangely warmed.” (quoting of course John Wesley’s experience of assurance of salvation at Aldersgate).
We all had a good laugh. But truly, as we engage in heart-warming mission, we give ourselves away—or melt away, as it were—so that we are not important any more. It is the work of ministry that is most important. We give ourselves away out of love for Christ.
Aldersgate Day can be everyday as we remember the love of God poured out for all of us in abundance. It only takes a moment to realize that we are loved a whole life long.
by David E. Woolverton
I’ve been a church pastor for over thirty years; consequently, there’s still a lot that I have to learn. Yet, there’s one thing I do know: Church conflict makes good people do stupid things. Why? In my experience, it’s usually because we either forget who we are, we forget why we’re here, or we forget where we’re supposed to be going. I know because I’m one of them.
Conflict leadership fundamentally is not about the resolution of disagreements. It’s about leading people through a discipleship process that helps them remember who they are in Christ, why the Church exists, and what the mission of the Church actually is.
Developing a Kingdom of God mind-set is critically important for conflict leadership. The local church was never intended to be the end of the process of discipleship, but rather a means to an end. The church is a movement of God’s Spirit, a vehicle by which God accomplishes God’s mission of multiplying disciples for the transformation of the world, through divinely-empowered acts of self-sacrificial love invasively perpetrated by lives changed by Christ.
Clearly, the best way to navigate through conflict situations is to work harder on the front end in creating a normative culture in our churches built around the Way of life that Jesus modeled, and then to reinforce that culture within the day-to-day relational connections of the congregation. Why? In simple terms, we become what we allow.
The language of the Kingdom of God communicates – in multiphasic ways – the values that Jesus Himself espoused. Learning that language comes best by immersion in real time – living out and living into the cultural expressions of community life under the leadership of Jesus Christ. Those values are seen first in the mandates that Jesus brought to the table of fellowship with the Twelve. It was as they journeyed together, ate together, laughed together, learned together, prayed together, did life together that Jesus taught them the most basic qualities of life in the Kingdom of God… and then challenged them to live out those values with each other as a testimony to the world: “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another” (John 13:35).
All those values create a visual image of how the Body of Christ, the Church, is to be different from the rest of the world. The Church thrives best when it is living out those values, representing Jesus in the world by how it treats those within its fellowship. When conflict arises, the Church has the opportunity to represent itself differently than the human condition would warrant, so that its witness is consistent with the values of the One who gave His life for the sake of its mission, as well as with the sanctification processes wrought by the Spirit embedded in His people.
It would seem that the problem with conflict is that we humans tend to think and respond way too often within a linear worldview – when, in fact, reality calls us into seeing life and all its complexities more as a mosaic. A mosaic is a “picture or pattern produced by arranging together small colored pieces of hard material, such as stone, tile or glass.” Most often, the best view of a mosaic is from a distance – so that one may see the full expression of the visual image that the composited tiles are to represent. For me, the mosaic is a powerful way of looking at different facets of the life of a disciple – from grief and trauma, to conflict and contrition, to forgiveness and reconciliation.
My theory is that when a “significant” event occurs – aka, a conflict, a trauma, a loss, an offense, a violation, a birth, a marriage, a divorce, an affair, a suicide, etc. – that event becomes imprinted on a tile in the greater masterpiece God is rendering out of our life story. Our emotional response to that event creates a framework for how that event is catalogued and interpreted by our mind, coloring our experience of its expression within our day-to-day life. The more “traumatic” the event, the more intense becomes the emotional reaction and the more focused we become on that event as defining our reality. Trauma – or more specifically, intense emotional pain – restricts our view to the individual tile representing that significant event, preventing us from seeing the larger picture of how that event contributes to our life story. Additionally, it blinds us from seeing how God could possibly redeem that pain.
As we proactively empower a mosaic view of our life together, we nurture a communal perspective of the redemptive capacity of God for all experiences in the lives of Jesus’s followers, both individual and corporate. For Jesus’s followers, God reframes our experiences of brokenness, inviting us both to trust Jesus’s redemptive work on our behalf, as well as to learn how to mediate and moderate our responses to our own feelings of offense for the sake of the greater mission.
There is an over-arching rhythm to the Kingdom of God’s discipling culture that anticipates conflict and invites us to harness its energy towards transformation and growth. That rhythm is based on the all-encompassing value of self-giving love – and followers of Jesus are called to live that love better than the world does.
As John 13 begins, Jesus is spending His last hours in the Upper Room with His closest friends. He knows what’s coming towards Him: betrayal, arrest, abandonment, severe beating, a mock trial, scourging, humiliation, crucifixion, an agonizing death. He knows He has limited time to equip His disciples with what they will need to endure not only the darkest night of their souls’ journey, but a mission that will become bigger than they would ever know. As an expert carpenter, He must whittle down all that they saw Him do and heard Him teach into one main lesson, something they will never forget. So, He takes off His garments, wraps Himself with a servant’s towel, grabs a bowl and a pitcher of water from near the entry door, and proceeds to wash the disciples’ feet. Each and every one of them. Including the one who would betray Him. In spite of Peter’s protest, Jesus embraces this act of self-denial for it visually implants into each of their memories the profound illustration of that one lesson.
When He finishes, Jesus takes off the towel, puts away the bowl and pitcher, puts His garments back on, returns to His place at the table, and asks a critically important question: “Do you understand what I have done for you?” (v. 12).
Back then, feet were dirty. Literally. And they smelled. Those guys did a lot of walking. Upon entering a home, foot washing was the house servant’s job, or the homeowner’s, if they could not afford a house servant, as a sign of hospitality. But it also served a very practical purpose: It improved the atmosphere of the home. Hold on to that thought.
Jesus’s act of humble service demonstrated that genuine love is willing to get dirty. It’s willing to shed rights and privilege for the sake of someone else’s best. It’s a willingness to assume that another person – any person – is more important than you.
“Do you understand what I have done for you?”
Then Jesus explains His object lesson. “You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. Very truly I tell you, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them” (John 13:13-17, italics mine).
Notice that Jesus sheds His positional authority (i.e., He took off His garments and donned a servant’s towel) to demonstrate His object lesson, and when finished, He “returns to His place [of authority]” (v. 12), and then uses that same positional authority to tell His disciples not to use their positional authority. Now, that is leadership.
In the Kingdom of God, typical values are upended, lessons are paradoxical, and disciples are challenged to live… and lead… differently than those in the world.
Meanwhile, back in the Upper Room, in the face of betrayal (Judas, in John 13:18-30) and denial (Peter, in John 13:31-38), Jesus downloads into them the main idea of His object lesson: “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another” (John 13:34-35, italics mine).
The anxiety in the room is rising. The reality of Jesus’ departure is getting more palpable. Judas exits. Peter is prophetically confronted with his pending denial. Jesus is losing the disciples to their fear. So, He speaks words of peace and promise (John 14) and invites them into a new metaphor, a vine and branches (John 15). Then, like a master-teacher, He repeats the main lesson:
“As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commands and remain in his love. I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. You are my friends if you do what I command”. (John 15:9-14 NIV, italics mine)
The model has been demonstrated, explained, reinforced and encouraged. It has to be enough… for now. Their destiny is about to unfold. They leave the Upper Room and go to the Gethsemane garden where, in John’s Gospel, Jesus prays – for Himself, His disciples, and for all of us who are yet to believe.
The core framework of conflict leadership is learning to dance the rhythms of love – the self-giving kind of love that Jesus embodied. It is the over-arching language of the Kingdom of God. Therefore, it must be the priority of the local church. As leaders, we must model, disciple, reinforce, encourage, and pray for that kind of love within the culture of our congregations. Without it, conflict leadership will be moot.
As the Church of Jesus Christ, especially within conflict situations, we need to lean into the redemptive love of God – a commitment to what can be, not just what is – based on the covenantal markers of the Cross-Event of Christ. A price has been paid for this special relationship – the relationship experienced between congregation members, but reflective of the bond between the Church and Jesus.
That price was intense and intentional – and its commitment must undergird the process that mediates our personal and corporate brokenness. Our individual pain and offense must be brought under the umbrella of our corporate missional witness and our corporate mandate of covenantal, accountable love. In doing so, God redeems our pain and uses its story as an embodied, prophetic testimony to God’s greater mission. Through it, God connects God’s long-suffering call to faithfulness with our willingness to submit our pain to a larger mosaic of global healing and redemption.
On purely human terms, this is not easy, of course. We must navigate through the powerfully inclement storms of our feelings – of violation, guilt, shame, justified anger, self-righteous indignation, unchained and recurrent emotionally traumatic memories, entitlements, the need to avenge, the need for revenge, rage and outrage, hatred, isolation, alienation, bigotry, fear, terror, to name but a few – in order to arrive at even the possibility of healing. On purely human terms, this does not make logical sense, when all our sympathetic impulses cry out for therapeutic intervention – the validation of our feelings and individualized treatment plans… and our perceptions of justice. Offense, by human nature, often compels us to push away from one another, not lean towards each other, unless, of course, we are trying to justify our victimization through collusion of shared misery.
Yet God is not defined by our human need for life to make sense. And the Lord of Life has issued a command. What will we do with that?Regardless of whether one considers the General Conference decision an ecclesial victory or a reflection of theological heresy, the entire process, in my opinion, was a no-win scenario. From the prospects of obtaining unity around the issues before us, I believe the specially called General Conference Session was already doomed to fail before it began. Approaching any significant conflict from the standpoint of positional negotiations automatically structures the resolution process into a win-lose arrangement. We began with options – a Traditional Plan, a One Church Plan, a Simple Plan, etc. – and dared our representatives to find enough voting ground to choose. Each leg of the journey, as item after item was chosen by “yes” or “no” vote, the weight of the win-lose arrangement became palpable. Win-lose within the Church always carries with it the ramification of abuse of power, layers of filial abandonment, and missional decay… even when we believe we are defending “doctrinal purity” or “social holiness.” Is there truly a “winner” when we must bear on our actions – however righteously intended they may be – the separation of those who are part of our fellowship? Would we not genuinely grieve at the prospect of significant portions of our Body exiting; or would we rejoice with relief? What if the proverbial shoes were on the other foot?
It is the aftermath of any conflict, the “wake,” that always reveals the character and life-doctrines of its participants. Stress always exposes both our strengths and vulnerabilities. Win or lose, what does our wake reveal about our own discipleship? Our own character? Our own value integrity?
Additionally, “unity” – a term used by both “sides” of the conflict – was significantly defined by standards only supported by each party: “Let us come together and be united as you support what is the most obvious way forward – ours.” This was not simply a clash over doctrine; it was a clash of perceived irreconcilable values and identity. And in spite of all of the years of a priori dialogue, no movement towards each other could be found to prepare the emotional and spiritual dimensions of the gathering in St. Louis. Mediation is only possible when both parties at least are willing to look for a mutually agreeable solution. Mediation did not take place in St. Louis. Doing the work of conflict leadership is laborious and emotionally draining, and thus we resort to parliamentary procedure to define our course.
Rather, from the perspective of its perceived goals, the General Conference session was doomed to fail – at no specific fault of any particular participants, and regardless of whichever plan was to be chosen. The stage was set long before anyone set foot onto the floor of the Conference, longer even before anyone was elected to be a delegate, and longer than before the bishops gathered to commission the Way Forward. No-win scenarios in conflicts occur when we focus on what we see solely in front of us, in linear terms, and thus fail to ask the most important questions. In my opinion, we did not ask the right questions.
For example, if genuinely we are wanting to create a solution to our long-embedded impasse, would we be willing to draw an end to the United Methodist Church as we know it? Would we, could we, fathom an act of self-sacrificial love so radical – for the sake of the mission that we proclaim – that we would sacrifice intentionally the very Parent-Church that gave birth to our present circumstances? The pattern of Abraham sacrificing Isaac as a test of faithful trust may seem antithetical to our 21st century mind, perhaps even reprehensible. Yet woven into the biblical meta-narrative is the invitation to “take nothing with you” as we go on the mission field of the gospel (cf. Mark 6:6b-13). When the Apostle Paul says that “nothing shall separate us from the love of God” in Romans 8 he is issuing both a declaration of assurance as well as a missional mandate.
Even if such an action was not what we in fact would perpetrate, asking the question and being willing to move into that direction has the power to set us free to value the mission greater than the vehicle designed to achieve it.
Rather, we sent our delegates into this special session each with the goal of preserving the “unity” of the Body of Christ, which we inevitably and mistakenly and perhaps unconsciously assumed meant the denomination and its doctrine – into which everyone had to fit, preferably agreeably.
What if preserving the denomination was not necessarily the only option? I’m not talking about shutting down the denomination, as some had proffered, as an act of conflict avoidance or as an act of resigned anger. As followers of Jesus, we are not called to tolerate one another, but to love one another. Love also demands that we step into the dirty places of interpersonal challenge. Rather, I’m talking about an act of radical love from a Parent on behalf of a Child for the sake of a greater mission. Would we do that?
It would seem to me that after a gestation period of over 40 years, nurtured by often vitriolic debate, the labor pains are finally announcing that a birth is about to take place. And in the womb of the Parent are two – maybe three – newborns that have been grabbing at each other’s heels trying to see which will emerge first and receive the birthright… when in fact, the Parent, to model its own Upper Room object lesson, is needing to give its life “as a ransom for many.”
Lest we miss this, the United Methodist Church is in transition… whether we like it or not. In order for us to enter into the “new beginnings,” as William Bridges has so wisely taught us in his classic book, Managing Transitions, we must go through an “ending” phase. And the season we then must enter into is the “neutral zone” of high anxiety and high creativity. God is transforming us on our way towards transforming the world for Jesus Christ. Would we be willing to engage the creative parts of the neutral zone within which we find ourselves – in spite of the high levels of reactive anxiety we feel? The United Methodist Church as we have known it is going to die regardless. Would we not want to end it with eulogy rather than unresolved bitterness that reflects the very image of what we, on both sides of the debate, have preached and taught against. If our Wesleyan values of scriptural holiness and social holiness are indeed to be embodied with integrity, and if indeed we espouse the underlying mandates of call and love intertwined within ordination and marriage, then for the sake of our witness to the world, our unique faith in Jesus Christ must compel us to lead through this conflict differently.
Using a golfing metaphor, I believe it’s time for the United Methodist Church to declare a mulligan, a do-over. It’s time for “both” sides to come back to the Table, realize in love that they are God-bearers of an important legacy that is far more important than each is individually, and celebrate in eulogy their Parent as it willingly dies for the sins of its children in order for them to have Life. Of course, I would suggest a much smaller group – perhaps consisting of Adam Hamilton, Rob Renfroe, their counterparts in Africa, Europe and the Philippines, and a few others who also would be willing to handle the deeper, tougher realities that prophetically are before us. Definitely they should be persons who have the maturity to ask honest questions and make honest decisions apart from the vitriolic need to justify or save face. Handling this with 860 delegates is further illustration of the muddled adage, “Wherever two or three are gathered in Jesus’s name… there’s bound to be a fight.”
It’s never too late. Never. Nothing that happened at St. Louis was a surprise to the Alpha and Omega. Perhaps what happened needed to happen in order to set the stage for more honest interactions. What spurred on John and Charles Wesley, Martin Boehm, Jacob Albright, Francis Asbury, Philip William Otterbein, Barbara Heck, Sojourner Truth, Sophronia Farrington, Clementina and William Butler, Fanny Crosby, Anna Howard Shaw, Charles Albert Tindley, and the many, many others towards creating a next step for the Kingdom of God, was not the preservation of a denomination, but a movement of God’s Spirit in reaching people – all people – for Christ. We must remember who we are, why we’re here, and where we’re going.
Ultimately, each Child of the Parent will show itself as being “of God” by the fruit that is borne from their labors.
God is not defined by our human need for life to make sense. And the Lord of Life has issued a command. What will we do with that?
E. Woolverton has been an ordained elder in the Eastern Pennsylvania Conference
of the United Methodist Church for over thirty years. Currently, he serves
full-time as Lead Pastor at St. Paul’s UMC, Elizabethtown, PA. Additionally, he is the United Methodist
Student Advisor, Affiliate Professor of Leadership Studies, and Program
Director of the Masters of Arts in Leadership at Evangelical Theological
Seminary, Myerstown, PA. David also is a
doctoral candidate in conflict leadership, a Spiritual Care Professional with
the Association of Clinical Pastoral Education, a church conflict consultant, a
clergy mentor, and a workshop leader for clergy and congregational transitions.
He is the 2011 recipient of the Harry Denman Award in Evangelism. Portions of
this article are taken from his book, Kingdom
Rules: What I Wish I Knew About Church Conflict Before I Became a Pastor
(soon to be published) copyright © 2018 by David E. Woolverton. All rights
 “mosaic,” New Oxford American Dictionary Online, Version 2.2.1 (194), Apple Inc., 2005-2006.
 William Bridges, Managing Transitions: Making the Most of Change (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1991).
Copyright © 2019 by David E. Woolverton. All rights reserved.
By Clarita Anderman Krall
Anger and a call to arms, figuratively speaking, to continue the quest for full inclusion of LGBTQIA+ United Methodists in their own church! This struggle for God’s justice is not over!
These were the range of emotions that I felt and thoughts that I had after the Traditional Plan was approved on Tuesday, February 26th, by a close vote of 438 to 384, a mere 54 votes difference. If only 28 more delegates had voted to defeat the Traditional Plan, it would not have passed.
As I listened to the delegates who spoke in favor of the Traditional Plan, it was my pained observation and understanding that, often, their views were expressed as an indication of our Church needing to be “biblically observant.” It made me feel as if those delegates do not believe that persons with a different opinion are being “biblically observant,” when it is rather the case that United Methodists of devout faith just DO NOT AGREE and do not always interpret scripture with the same point of view. Throughout the history of Christianity, Biblical criticism is an area of study that exists because of differing understandings within the faith.
The oft quoted scripture supporting the position that same gender relations are outside acceptability within church teaching are passages in which Jesus is asked a question about divorce. (See Matthew 19 and Mark 10.) At that time in social history, there was not a legal recognition of same gender marriages. Had there been recognition, Jesus’ teaching on divorce would, most probably, have been all-inclusive. Yet, the United Methodist Church has found a way to accept persons who have been divorced as members and clergy in churches. Revered Old Testament figures practiced polygamy and kept concubines. However, these practices do not sit well today in our 21st Century North American practice of United Methodism.
Even John Wesley, founder of the Methodist movement, did not always agree with George Whitefield, another cleric in the early Methodist movement, particularly on the theology of atonement. They “agreed to disagree.” I cannot understand why our denomination cannot continue in that tradition of agreeing to disagree on something that has nothing to do with making disciples of Jesus Christ.
Bible students understand that there are various ways to interpret scripture, dependant on historical, societal, and cultural differences. When the Pharisees learned how Jesus was answering the Sadducees, they piled on and sent their best religion scholar to ask him about which command in God’s law is the most important. He answered, “’Love the Lord your God with all your passion and prayer and intelligence.’ This is the most important, the first on any list. But there is a second to set alongside it: ‘Love others as well as you love yourself.’ These two commands are pegs; everything in God’s Law and the Prophets hangs from them.” (Matthew 22:37-40, The Message translation)
Not accepting the LGBTQIA+ community, as God created the community, flies in the face of Jesus’ second commandment. I do not believe that the Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church, since 1972, has been in keeping with Jesus’ commandments.
BY BISHOP PEGGY JOHNSON
According to the Visitor’s Center at the “St. Louis Arch” National Park, this city has always been “the gateway to the west.” The earliest major trails that settlers used to travel to points west went through St. Louis, Missouri.
This “Show-Me State” metropolis is also known for some strategic and historic court cases during the 19th century. One was the case of Dred Scott (1799-1858), a slave who petitioned the court for his freedom in 1847.
Scott won his freedom, only to face numerous appeals trials that eventually landed in the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices ruled that slaves were “property” and had no right to file lawsuits in courts.
Scott and his wife Harriet were sent back into bondage. But in the years that followed, they returned to that same courthouse and were finally emancipated in 1857.
Another historic case in St. Louis dealt with the issue of women’s suffrage. Virginia Minor (1824-1894) sued the state in 1874 for the right to vote according to the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. She was denied, and her petition also ended up at the Supreme Court, where the decision of the lower courts was upheld.
Sadly, Minor never lived to see the passage of the 19th Amendment that finally gave women the right to vote in 1920. However, her valiant efforts were part of the movement that eventually gave equal rights to women at the voting polls.
The General Conference of The United Methodist Church met in St. Louis February 23-26 for an historic special, called session. The order of business was to decide whether to retain or remove two of the denomination’s bans: one on hosting or officiating at same-gender weddings; and the other on ordaining self-avowed, practicing homosexual clergy.
For two and a half years a carefully chosen, inclusive group of 32 United Methodists from all over the globe gathered nine times to find A Way Forward for the church. They finally presented three possible plans for consideration: the One Church Plan, the Connectional Church Plan and the Traditional Plan.
The Council of Bishops overwhelmingly supported the One Church Plan. However, the decision was in the hands of the 833 voting delegates to this worldwide assembly.
Their gathering began with a spirited day of prayer, then a day of legislative committee work and finally a day of plenary voting. The voting process was confusing, to say the least, with many amendments and points of order and rulings from the denomination’s top court, the Judicial Council.
In the end, the international body of conservative, moderate and progressive members voted by a narrow margin to support the Traditional Plan. This plan maintains our current policy that does not allow people who are self-avowed, practicing homosexuals to be ordained ministers and does not permit our pastors to perform, nor our churches to host, same-gender weddings or holy unions.
Some enforcements to the church’s current Book of Discipline were also added in this plan. The full Traditional Plan is now in the hands of the Judicial Council to be vetted for constitutionality.
Some petitions have already been ruled as unconstitutional, but time and the tedium of Parliamentary Procedure did not allow for much correction. The Judicial Council will rule on which parts remain valid at their April 23-25 meeting.
There is deep disappointment and hurt in the LGBTQIA+ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex, Asexual+) community and among their family, friends and supporters at this time.
Hundreds of people came to St. Louis to advocate for the One Church Plan. It would have removed the restrictive language in the Book of Discipline and allowed pastors, churches, Boards of Ordained Ministry and Annual Conferences to act out of their conscience on these matters.
In addition, over 15,000 young adult United Methodists signed a petition imploring the church to begin to open the doors to the LGBTQIA+ community. I encourage you to remember them in your prayers and reach out to offer them comfort, conversation and encouragement.
After General Conference ended, I looked up and saw the Arch, this huge stainless-steel tourist attraction, built in 1965, that reminds us about our history of western expansion. St. Louis’ slogan is “Still Moving On.”
Likewise, the church is still moving on in mission and ministry for Jesus Christ. Nothing can stop the church from evangelizing and doing the work of Christ. People of goodwill who believe differently about the important issues voted on at General Conference are and should be “still moving on” together to reach and help heal a hurting, broken world. We still have a “charge to keep and a God to glorify!”
St. Louis’ Old Courthouse, the scene of historic legal battles against oppression and for civil rights, is now a museum located fittingly next to the Gateway Arch. The two should inspire in us another message for those whose hearts are grieving at this time. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. once famously said, “The Arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”
The gleaming St. Louis Arch also bends toward justice. Dred and Harriet Scott were eventually a freed from slavery. Women finally got the right to vote. Some important, lasting moments in history happened right there in this gateway city.
Here and now, during our winter of discontent, something important and lasting happened in The United Methodist Church as well. We will never be the same.
I believe with all my heart that eventually The United Methodist Church will become a welcoming and affirming denomination in ministry with the LGBTQIA+ community. Like the arc of justice, the wait is long, and the struggle can last a long, long time.
Habakkuk 2:3 says “For still the vision awaits its appointed time; it hastens to the end, it will not lie. If it seems slow, wait for it, it will surely come, it will not delay.”
The temptation for many is to give up. But I implore the church to continue the work of relationship-building and holy conversation and fervent prayer, until there is a new day. Then the consciences of all will be respected and the lives of all will be welcomed as no longer strangers in God’s household.
By Bishop Peggy Johnson
The United Nations has declared that 2019 is the “International Year of Indigenous Languages.” (Check it out on www.en.iyil2019.org). Studies have shown the following statistics: There are 7,000 languages spoken worldwide (among 5,000 indigenous cultures), 370 million indigenous people in the world, 90 countries with indigenous communities, and a whopping 2,680 languages that are in danger of extinction.
Why is this important? According to the U.N.,“Languages play a crucial role in the daily lives of people, not only as a tool for communication, education, social integration and development, but also as a repository for each person’s unique identity, cultural history, traditions and memory. But despite their immense value, languages around the world continue to disappear at an alarming rate.”
Furthermore, the United Nations suggests that “awareness and respect for indigenous languages builds sustainable development, peace, reconciliation, and it is a fundamental human right.”
Christians surely need to take notice if we profess that we are called to “do justice, love kindness and walk humbly before God.” (Micah 6:8)
As the former pastor of a congregation that used American Sign Language as its primary means of communication, I learned quickly the power of language for an individual’s ability to grow personally and professionally. The “majority” hearing world largely had the upper hand in decision-making settings. The sign-language-user was often forced to accommodate and take a lesser role in leadership and influence.
The same is true for indigenous people and their languages. There is an inequity issue whenever the majority culture uses its language power to control the minority when it comes to the distribution of benefits and opportunities. “English-only” initiatives are oppressive because they tilt power toward the majority and create a “them” and “us” dynamic. This minimizes the giftedness of all people and negates their unique and empowering languages.
The United Methodist Church’s Social Principles speaks loud and clear about social justice (Paragraph 162 2016 Book of Discipline “The Social Community”). “We affirm all persons as equally valuable in the sight of God…” it states. “We support the basic rights of all persons to equal access to housing, education, communication, employment, medical care, legal redress for grievances, and physical protection.”
As the people called Methodist, we should learn about these precious language issues that are a source of empowerment and equality for our sisters and brothers. Around the United States Native American tribes are teaching their indigenous languages with faithfulness. They yearn for support and affirmation.
Brett Jackson, a young adult Nanticoke Tribal leader writes: “Tribal language is important to me because it connects me to my ancestors, it teaches me their values and perception of the world, and continuing to use the language is essential to further teach my culture.”
Kesha Braunskill from the Lenape tribe added: “I feel that tribal language is our link to preserving our culture. It’s as important as the responsibility to pass on knowledge and traditions to each generation. Language is a part of it all.”
More information about this can be found on the “Indigenous Language Caucus” website: http://www.yuchilanguage.org.
Make it your aim to learn a new language this year, maybe an indigenous tribal language, and with it would come a whole new world of culture and community that you have never known before. Here are a few Native American words for starters:
From the Lenape Tribe of Delaware (permission given by tribal leader Theo Braunskill):
“A’ho” means “Hello”
“Wanishi” means “Thank you”
From the Nanticoke Tribe of Delaware (permission given by tribal leader Mike Harmon):
“Gichtishi Manito” means “God or Great Spirit”
“Eweenetu” means “Peace”
From “Eastern Cherokee Heritage” (permission given by RagghiRain Calentine, chair of the Peninsula Delaware Conference’s Committee on Native CONAM):
“Osiyo” means “Hello”
“Oginalli” means “My Friend”
“Ama” means “Water”
Listen to the beauty of the Cherokee language set to music by logging onto: https://youtu.be/Nf1SdNyB-Wc This is a translation of the hymn: “There’s Just Something About That Name.”
RagghiRain Calentine is hopeful. “The Cherokee words are passed on from generation to generation. Our Native tongue isn’t going to be forgotten or lost. Our ‘Mother Tongue’ is waiting for each one of us to speak our own unique language. This is a gift from the “One and Only.”