Praise for 'Methodox' Leaders; Who Will Be Next?

Growing up as an enthusiastic sixteen year old evangelical in the 70's, I remember it being disturbing as I encountered one United Methodist congregation after another with a profoundly liberal theology and practice. And over the next couple of decades, my associations with UMC churches only confirmed the same liberal bent I had previously observed.

In the 90's, however, all of that began to change - a change, I'm sure, that had as much to do with growth in my own life as with what might have been changing within the UMC itself.

In a recent action, the nine-member high court of the United Methodist Church, exonerated one of its pastors for refusing "official" membership to an openly gay man in his congregation.  Although Edward Johnson's bishop had suspended him without pay, the UMC high court reversed the decision.  In a recently CT article (Dec. '05, p.21), James Jewell interviewed Mark Tooley about this case.  Tooley is head of the UMC's program for the Institute for Religion and Democracy, and made the church's position very clear: "United Methodism is not moving in the direction of declining liberal Protestantism in the West.  Instead, it is moving in the direction of global Christianity, which is robustly orthodox."

It seems that Tooley is one of a growing number of UMC leaders we might describe as "Methodox."  And the United Methodists are obviously not the only denomination or group experiencing a resurgence and affirmation of conservative orthodoxy and orthopraxy (the world's Anglicans being a case-in-point).

Although I am a Free Methodist pastor, I rejoice with all who embrace the Wesleyan heritage of which I'm a part, and I especially want to voice my praise for the growing number of Methodox leaders within the UMC who are being used to swing their Church away from the extreme left, while at the same time intentionalizing their efforts to meet and love people right where they're at (evidenced by efforts like this one).

Who will be next?

.

Afterthought: we are supposedly living in a post-denominational era, but it's looking more and more like what's shaping up is a show-down between red denominations and blue ones (apologies to all my friends and readers outside of the US who may not understand my pithy characterization). Do you agree or disagree? I'd enjoy hearing from you.

Comments

[Pastor Art]

Red and blue this is true (a little poetry this morning). The end of the book of Rev.tells us that a line will be drawn the Righteous will be increasingly so and the unrighteous as well. Will the show downs and decisions across the established visible Body of Christ increase if we read the text of the end yes can be the only answer.
Pastor Art

[Seraphim]

Chris, this is encouraging to read. My first 'brush' with a denomination like this was the Nazarenes. I must say I was disappointed with the encounter. Pastor's that were Open Theists, thought Redaction Criticism was a good way to understand the Bible, etc.

So I was glad to hear of a Methodox!

I'shalom

Seraphim

[leadworshipperfc]

I am not so sure about the polarization because I see a lot of "purple" (perhaps even haze?) in churches. I like the methodox term. Does that mean there is a such a thing as generous methodoxy?

However, as worship style seems to be the defining issue for many congregations at the close of the 20th century and beginning of the 21st, the defining issue for the next generation(s) may be the homosexual issue. I wonder if history will view those of us that consider open homosexuality an unbiblical lifestyle as arrogant neanderthals that couldn't see the new wave of "enlightenment" in much the same way as we might view those who used the bible to justify slavery.

In Christ.

[Fr Matt]

Ugh! Well, I tell ya, if homosexual behavior is deemed a biblically acceptable wave of the future I think I will become a polygamist. There is a lot more biblical justification for that than there is homosexuality, and I think I will have a lot more fun (though my current wife might not appreciate it very much). And we dont have to push Colonialist ideas about monogamist marriage in polygamist cultures any longer either. Muslims and Africans don't have to make as costly a conversion in this case. Ok, I think I've talked myself into it!

[Rev. Fr. Stan]

That story is very encouraging and its about time.

Methodism was born as a reaction to the nominalism and worldliness of the Church of England.

>>I wonder if history will view those of us that consider open homosexuality an unbiblical lifestyle as arrogant neanderthals that couldn't see the new wave of "enlightenment" in much the same way as we might view those who used the bible to justify slavery.

This would depend on whether you thought that the Holy Spirit animates the church or not. I suppose that in an Anti-Christ dominated culture where the Pseudo Christ is fully revealed that this would be so.

Maybe this is the real dividing issue between the real red and the real blues is that the Reds believe that Christianity is not a natural human development, but a revelation of God (mysteric). And that is what the first Methodists did believe.

[John Lunt]

"I wonder if history will view those of us that consider open homosexuality an unbiblical lifestyle as arrogant neanderthals that couldn't see the new wave of "enlightenment" in much the same way as we might view those who used the bible to justify slavery."

It doesn't matter what the world thinks. It only matters what God thinks. I'm concerned though about how we approach issues like homosexuality. Are we just spending our time trying to stop the advance of acceptance. If we are we are fighting a defensive battle and will lose.

As I read it, the church is supposed to be on the offensive (as opposed to just being offensive). That means instead of trying to use politics to block the darkness, we must be light and overcome the darkness. That doesn't mean we try to make the world look something like the Kingdom of God. Instead, we focus on the expansion of the real Kingdom of God and let the Kingdom invade the world. Jesus said the Gates of Hell would not prevail against his church.

I guess I'm trying to say that we should oppose any efforts to say that "homosexual behaviour is not a sin and is acceptable to God." But the focus of our message needs to be the Kingdom and it's King, Jesus.

Instead of protesting gays, maybe we should help with Aids hospices. We should shine in the darkness.

Just my two cents worth.

[Michelle]

John,

I have to say a big "AMEN". We as Christian's are supposed to love everyone regardless of what their worldly views are or the way that they are living their lives. Jesus commands us to "Love your neighbor as yourself". Maybe we should shine our light in the midst of the Aids hospice and show our love by our actions and not just our words and maybe just maybe things would begin to change.

Blessings!

[Benjy]

We aren't in a post-denomational era yet, but we are moving to one. Many of us long for the day when we move past red/blue states and issues.

Why are we still making such a big deal about this issue? If we say that homosexuality is a sin, fine. But don't treat it any differently than we do other ones.

I don't think God worries about issues like this nearly as much as we do. Is this a topic Jesus would really be involved in if here on earth today? What about war, fair trade and AIDS?

[John Lunt]

"I don't think God worries about issues like this nearly as much as we do. Is this a topic Jesus would really be involved in if here on earth today? What about war, fair trade and AIDS?"

Jesus would be involved in people where they were and leading them to a better way, regardless of what the issue is.

Jesus did not really deal with governments. He dealt with individuals. He probably would not make a big issue of fair trade, just as he didn't make a big issue of the Roman empire. Instead, his focus would be in changing hearts. When God changes hearts, and brings us to a place of loving him and people, then fair trade, war would not be the issues they are. God isn't too involved in the symptoms but the heart that leads to the symptoms.

[Benjy]

Are you serious? If you don't think that Jesus had anything to say about the government of his day and time, I would really urge you to do some more research.

[John Lunt]

I am serious. His emphasis is individual. Look at the sermon on the mount. He's after hearts. Changing hearts changes communities and governments. That's the only thing that does. Jesus could have spoken a word and toppled the Roman empire. He didn't. Eventually it was toppled. But by changed hearts of believers as Christianity spread. So I am absolutely serious. He said it himself. His kingdom was not of this world. You can make all the laws you want and nothing changes. Greed goes unabated. Racism continues. Jesus knew that change comes from redemption of people's hearts. Now he did rebuke the "religeous" leaders. But he didn't rail against Rome. As a matter of fact, Paul, one of Jesus' apostles, said to obey those with authority over you. Even pray for them. Jesus doesn't tackle structures from the top down, but from the bottom -up and from the inside out.

[Benjy]

Ok, that makes more sense. You are right about changing the hearts of people, but Jesus also spoke about the roman empire and how people should react to it.