William Willimon

, , , , , ,

Thinking (again) about God and sports: Was the Lord of Hosts cheering for Duke?

, , , , , ,
Thinking (again) about God and sports: Was the Lord of Hosts cheering for Duke?

What we have here is one of those evergreen feature ideas that surfaces whenever there is a global or national sporting event that inspires religious-level fervor in fans.

Now, it’s March Madness and hoops believers — especially sort-of Methodists — will need to interpret the theological implications of Duke University (think Methodist House of Studies at the divinity school) smashing Oral Roberts University 74-51 in the first round in a tournament game that some folks though might have upset potential. Oh, the late faith healer and televangelist Oral Roberts was also (#HONEST) a United Methodist minister.

So, did God ignore the prayers of evangelical-Pentecostal hoops fanatics and favor those of the theologically hip, fluid, progressive believers at Duke? Does this score mean that God (pronouns are controversial) was pro-Duke?

With that in mind, here is a breezy pre-game think piece on this topic that ran at Religion News Service. It was written by two self-avowed Duke dudes, veteran religion-beat pro Mark Pinsky (frequently plugged here at GetReligion) and media consultant Rusty Wright. Here’s the double-decker headline:

Divine dilemma: Who gets God’s nod in March Madness?

If two Christian schools’ fans pray for victory, which one gets God’s favor?

Yes, there are passages that make this an interesting read — even after a Duke throwdown.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In terms of church history, should the United Methodist break-up be called a 'schism'?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
In terms of church history, should the United Methodist break-up be called a 'schism'?

When I moved to Denver in 1984, Rocky Mountain News (RIP) my work plunged me into the ongoing United Methodist Church battles over creed-level doctrines, the Bible and, of course, homosexuality.

The region’s defining institution was the Iliff School of Theology, a UMC authorized seminary that a former professor there once told me was “the single most liberal school in America that still bothers to call itself ‘Christian.’ “ In the late ‘80s, an Iliff student said he had encountered one professor who believed that the resurrection of Jesus actually happened, as an event in real time. I would doubt this seminary has become more small-o “orthodox” in the past third of a century.

If you were in Denver back then it was clear that the United Methodists were in the midst of a very slow train wreck and that a parting of the ways was inevitable. The question: Who would leave and who would control the assets of this large, but shrinking, denomination?

This brings us to a recent story in The Nashville Tennessean with this dramatic double-decker headline (behind a fierce paywall):

Methodists focus on Easter amid denominational schism and the tough decisions ahead

A new, more conservative Methodist denomination is set to launch May 1 after a years-long debate centered largely over LGBTQ rights.

People have been using the word “schism” for decades, when describing this conflict. I would like to argue that this technical term is problematic, in this case, and that recent events — especially the proposed “Reconciliation and Grace Through Separation” protocol — have made it even more so. I propose using the word “divorce,” in this case. Hold that thought.

There is much to praise in this Tennessean story, especially the many quotes from regional church leaders on both sides of this battle. However, the “schism” lens is easy to see. I think that with two or three extra sentences, readers would have a better idea what is going on in this conflict. It’s also important to know that the Southeast is a crucial region in this conflict (along with the core Midwest), in which there are many doctrinally conservative churches paired with bishops who are more progressive.

But let’s start with the term “schism.” Here is a helpful Britannica reference:

schism, in Christianity, a break in the unity of the church.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , ,

United Methodist pastor dives into HBO drag-queen culture, drawing joyful RNS applause

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
United Methodist pastor dives into HBO drag-queen culture, drawing joyful RNS applause

Religion news consumers who have been alive for a few decades are probably aware that — on issues related to the Bible and sexuality — United Methodists are, in fact, not united.

Anyone looking for deep background on that topic can turn to a classic document from the mid-1980s entitled “The Seven Churches of United Methodism.” Click here for the first of two “On Religion” columns I wrote about the continuing relevance of that report, which was written by Duke University sociologist Robert L. Wilson, who died in 1991, and William Willimon, now a retired bishop.

Of course, there are bipartisan plans for a United Methodist divorce that would create a more LGBTQ-friendly version of the current denomination and a global Methodist body that would retain traditional teachings on marriage and sexuality. Hold that thought.

Every now and then, Religion News Service — one of the definitive sources for news on the Christian left — produces a news report that perfectly illustrates just how divided Methodists are on edgy issues related to sexuality. This brings us to the following dramatic double-decker RNS headline:

Meet the United Methodist pastor featured on HBO’s drag reality show ‘We’re Here’

Performing in drag was an ‘incredibly wonderful, refreshing, deepening, powerful spiritual experience,’ said Pastor Craig Duke of Newburgh United Methodist Church in Indiana.

Let me note, right up front, that this story opens all kinds of doors to discussions of the two doctrinal approaches that — on issues of biblical authority and a host of other issues — can be found in the current United Methodist Church. However, the story includes absolute zero voices from Methodists on the traditional side of these debates — even from members of the pastor’s own congregation who can be expected to ask questions about his TV leap into the world of drag culture.

Here is the overture to this advocacy-journalism report. This is long, but essential:


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Trigger warning! New Crossroads podcast contains dis-United Methodist time travel

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I don’t need to write a new GetReligion post about this week’s “Crossroads,” do I?

After all, this podcast conversation with host Todd Wilken (click here to listen) focuses on why United Methodists on the doctrinal left and right, as well as establishment players in the middle, are now bracing for divorce. In one form or another, I’ve been writing this post since the early 1980s.

What we need is a time machine (I’m a fan of Doctor Who No. 4) so that I could let readers bounce around in United Methodist history and see why all those new headlines about a proposed plan to break-up this complicated church need to be linked to trends and events in the past.

So here we go. Stop No. 1 in this time-travel adventure is Denver, in the year 1980 (care of a GetReligion post with this headline: “United Methodism doctrine? Think location, location, location”).

… It was in 1980 — note that this was one-third of a century ago — that Bishop Melvin Wheatley, Jr., of the Rocky Mountain Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church announced … he was openly rejecting his church's teaching that homosexual acts were "incompatible with Christian teaching."

Two years later, this United Methodist bishop appointed an openly gay pastor to an urban church in Denver. When challenged, Wheatley declared: "Homosexuality is a mysterious gift of God's grace. I clearly do not believe homosexuality is a sin."

This date is crucial, because it underlines the fact that the United Methodist Church’s doctrine that homosexual acts are “incompatible with Christian teaching” has been on the books for decades.

That’s why the following passage — from the New York Times a few days ago — is so misleading. The wording here gives the average reader the impression that this doctrine is something that conservatives pulled out of their hats in 2019. This Times report stated that a global split has been:


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Set the WABAC machine for when? Time for another trip into United Methodist polity!

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

As veteran journalists know, sometimes there are stories that seem really, really big when you read the press releases, but they turn out to be business as usual when you dig into the details.

That appears to be what happened with the Cincinnati Enquirer story (part of the USA Today network) offering on update on one of the many legal battles unfolding in the United Methodist Church about the status of LGBTQ ministers. The headline: "Gay Methodist minister David Meredith, church claim victory."

It's a very familiar story, part of a familiar ecclesiastical puzzle that has been in place since (wait for it) 1980. How many years ago was that? Let's put it this way: I wasn't even working full-time on the religion beat at that point.

We will return to the WABAC machine angle of this story in a moment. First, let's look at the story that the Enquirer thought it had, as opposed to what appears to have happened. The key question: Is this a local story, a regional story or a national/global story? Here is the public-relations release overture:

Claiming victory for LGBTQ members of the United Methodist Church nationwide, officials told The Enquirer on Wednesday that two of three charges against a Clifton congregation's openly gay pastor, David Meredith, were not certified
The Rev. Meredith appeared Sunday before the Methodist Committee on Investigation in Columbus, Ohio. Several complaints were filed against Meredith after his May 2016 marriage to his significant other of 29 years. Meredith and Jim Schlachter were married in a Methodist church by a Methodist minister.
Meredith was not charged with being a self-avowed practicing homosexual or with immorality.
Clifton United Methodist Church, whose membership overwhelmingly supports its pastor, said the case may be the first time in denominational history that a charge relating to homosexuality reached the investigative body and was dismissed. A charge of disobedience was certified. 

OK, readers, here is my question. Based on what you just read, at what level of United Methodist polity was this decision made?


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , ,

United Methodism doctrine? Think location, location, location

, , , , , , ,

Sherman, please set the controls of the GetReligion WABAC (pronounced “wayback”) machine for the year 1980. Our destination is Denver, because it’s time for another episode of Improbable United Methodist History. Yes, it was in 1980 — note that this was one-third of a century ago — that Bishop Melvin Wheatley, Jr., of the Rocky Mountain Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church announced (wait for it) that he was openly rejecting his church’s teaching that homosexual acts were “incompatible with Christian teaching.”

Two years later, this United Methodist bishop appointed an openly gay pastor to an urban church in Denver. When challenged, Wheatley declared: “Homosexuality is a mysterious gift of God’s grace. I clearly do not believe homosexuality is a sin.”

The Denver pastor continued to serve for many years (while also leading the Colorado AIDS Project), in part because the United Methodist policy opposed the appointment of “self-avowed, practicing” homosexuals. Note the words “self-avowed.” Thus, when appearing before officials in the liberal Rocky Mountain Annual Conference, this minister simply declined to answer questions about his sexual history or practice. Since he was not, therefore, “self-avowed” (at least not during those official church meetings), his sympathetic local church leaders declared that he was not in violation of the national church’s doctrinal standards.


Please respect our Commenting Policy