“Pelosi just thanked the United Methodist Church for their support of healthcare reform #anotherreasonnottobemethodist”
Tweeted by @timastevens on Sunday, March 21st, 10:28pm
On the hypothetical chance that this statement may have been misconstrued, let me clarify…
- I am a Methodist. I have been a Methodist since 1993.
- I love the roots of the Methodist movement.
- I do everything I can to help thousands of Methodist pastors and leaders every year.
- For 17 years, I have been a part of what I consider to be one of the most effective churches in America–and it has been, is now, and will continue to be a Methodist congregation.
- I have given the past 15 years of my life to serve and support an appointed elder in the Methodist church. Every day it has been my goal to put feet to his vision.
-
However, I am a follower of Christ before I am a Methodist.
-
I would rather make disciples than make Methodists.
-
To whatever degree Methodism contributes to making disciples–I embrace it. To whatever degree Methodism detracts from making disciples–I go around it.
- It saddens me that the United Methodist Church is often known primarily for its’ political positions that have nothing to do with making disciples of Christ. Some of that is perception…some of it is reality.
- I was frustrated by the UMC using its collective strength to influence the government to establish a hand-out system rather than calling on the church to be the church and meet those needs.
- We (Methodists) have given the public many reasons not to be Methodist. In fact, every year more people decide to become former Methodists. In my opinion, speaker Pelosi’s comments give Americans “another reason not to be Methodist.”
So, I stand by my tweet. Your thoughts?
48 Comments
I love John Wesley & his theology.
I hate Methodism.
I have no doubt that he would as well.
Unfortunately I don't think you can judge anything (Methodism, or Christianity in general for that matter) by what its roots are, what it started as, or what it was intended to be. The only thing possible to judge it by is what it is now. Because that's what everyone outside of it will be judging it by.
I would not be surprised if United Methodism as we know it today ceased to exist in my lifetime. I'd welcome it. Because I think it's dysfunctional.
I don't mean methodists are dysfunctional, or that specific churches are dysfunctional. I mean the United Methodist bureaucracy and systems are dysfunctional. (I'm sure you understood the difference….but still)
While I'm undecided on the healthcare debate, I resonate with your overall view of our denomination, Tim. Here are some related thoughts that I've written about as national Methodist Examiner:
http://www.examiner.com/x-8276-Methodist-Examiner~y2009m...
and here's one where I specifically gave you guys a plug:
http://www.examiner.com/x-8276-Methodist-Examiner~y2009m...
Keep it up bro,
JM
"It saddens me that the United Methodist Church is often known primarily for its’ political positions that have nothing to do with making disciples of Christ. Some of that is perception…some of it is reality."
As a UMC elder I appreciate this comment. I struggle with the perception, if not the reality, that some in the UMC seek to right the world without pointing others to a new life in Christ.
I think Pelosi misspoke. As United Methodist's we do have a social principle regarding health care, but official statements can only come out of General Conference and I don't believe health care as a whole was voted on at GC 2008.
I thought the same thing until I researched the official site and visited the page created for the express purpose of activating congregations to work for the passage. Our church is meeting next week to discuss our succession from the UMC. If we do not succeed, this 40 year Methodist and family are moving to a true Bible based church.
Wondering what Wesley would preach this Sunday?
Stevens for Congress!
As one who was educated at a Weslyan institution (with a large number of Methodists – Asbury Seminary), I came to appreciate the history of Methodism w/o being a Methodist. Even back when I graduated (mid-90s), the UM seemed more interested in politics and political leanings than in disciple-making, as evidenced by the rigors my peers were put through when they disagreed politically with the powers in their respective conferences. Regardless, I'm encouraged that there are still UM elders who care more about the Gospel than the social gospel the general UM conference seems to hold to.
As a conservative, I would be greatly disturbed by Pelosi's comments if I was Methodist. I'm pleased to know that there are still Methodist pastors who haven't fallen in to the irrelevance of societal compromise and who continue to lift Jesus up above all. Being opposed to the HRC bill doesn't mean you don't love people, but that you don't believe that the government is our Saviour. To quote Derek Webb, "There will never be a Savior on Capitol Hill."
Keep up the good work, Tim & crew!
Tim, I agree with your sentiments. I was born a Methodist, baptized a Methodist, and have lived most of my life in and around the Methodist church. My wife is a Methodist pastor. I continually struggle with some of the politics that get associated with the UMC. Like you, I am a follower of Christ first and everything else second. There are so many wonderful things about the UMC, it's a shame that it also gets associated with many far left views.
Why would the UMC put the votes of UMC members… when the UMC supported the bill and the MAJORITY of the votes they listed were no votes?
Shows to me that their members did not follow the leadership of the UMC… Just saying!
Sorry Malcolm, I read it 5x but have no idea what you are saying.
Tim, I really hear what you are saying. I did not realize that this was said and it pains me to think that the GC would be for this. I, myself am a Methodist since 2001 or so and am just beginning to serve in leadership roles in the UMC.
Whatever your opinion of health care is, I think it was questionable to call it to vote on a Sunday.
Time will tell and this will arm me as I share my faith with others. Thanks.
This is more a personal comment than a direct response to this post, but it is at least tangential. When I first began looking for God, I went to a Methodist church. As a seeker, I found Methodism there, but it seemed to obscure God just enough that I wasn't sure I found him. But fortunately I kept looking, and fortunately God let me find him. I consider myself to be kind of God's free agent today — to the best of my ability to hear God's leading, I work where he puts me, regardless of the denominational name. Today I work with a congregation that has roots in the Restoration Movement (Christian Churches, Disciples of Christ, Churches of Christ). But if God calls me to work with Baptists or Methodists or Episcopalians or just plain Christians one day down the road, I hope I hear him and I hope I simply obey.
I wrote about this journey a couple years ago: http://jimgrey.wordpress.com/2007/04/26/61/.
Hey,
I guess you should start a free hospital…and get other churches to as well…then we won't need the goverment to care for the poor and downtrodden…the church will be doing it…
How many churches in the states have doctors on staff? Up here in Canada I can't think of any…but it wasn't always like that…the funny thing is…it was a Baptist minister…Tommy Douglas…who championed our public health care back in the 40's…prior to that, churches ran the hospitals (and the universities)….the church basically created healthcare in canada, and then they infiltrated the government and made it a right for everyone….if that's not loving your neighbor, I don't know what is…and what is actually the most interesting is that Tommy Douglas was voted the Greatest Canadian (beating Wayne Gretzgy…if you can believe it)…that's a church that I'm excited to be a part of…one that is changing peoples lives and loving them…
Here's hoping that in 60's years the methodists will be known as the Greatest American's….
Not a Methodist. Never have been. If I had ever thought about it this would put a serious crimp in my thinking.
The UMC is on record as seeking health care for all, especially "the least of these." At the 2008 General Conference we reaffirmed a long held position that health care is a basic human right.
But we are not nimble enough to speak to or endorse a specific bill as a body.
Pelosi says 350 organizations "supported this legislation."
I believe she misspoke, at least concerning the UMC. The only group that can speak for the UMC is the every four year General Conference. We didn't have an authorized group there seeing the specific legislation as it changed hourly, and endorsing or withholding an endorsement from a specific bill, be it the Senate version, House version, or the multiple options and amendments that were offered from both sides of the aisle.
(see next post)
Nancy Pelosi misspeak? It has been known to happen.
Good thoughts David. I appreciate Tim's boldness in voicing his thoughts.
David – on the day following Pelosi's comments, the director of the General Board of Church and Society (which was the agency charged by the general conference with advocating health care as a basic right), said:
“I appreciate that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi thanked The United Methodist Church for the support our denomination has given to health-care reform. For decades, the General Board of Church & Society has worked alongside thousands of United Methodists to achieve health care for all in the U.S.; this vote brings us closer to that reality. When signed into law there will be important protections for every person including banning health-insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.”
I think that is a clear indication, by a UMC official, that the UMC supported this legislation.
We have good United Methodist legislators that voted against the health reform bill, such as Sen. Richard Lugar. And we have good United Methodist legislators who voted for the bill.
The United Methodist Church is third among religious groups in the total number of members of the 111th Congress. Among its 44 members in the House, 26 voted no; 18 voted yes. (Tim – that was what one of the posts you didn't understand was referring to.)
The UMC and its members should not, although we sometimes do, confuse a particular partisan bill with the Christian faith. I think those on the left and right often make this mistake. But then I'm a centrist.
We will not excommunicate any legislator who did or did not vote for a particular bill.
(see next post)
Here is a good summary from our official UMC site:
http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?...
We stand united for certain principles, but on specific (especially partisan) positions we live and let live. "Is your heart the same as mine? If so, it is enough. I extend to you the right hand of fellowship." (John Wesley)
I like the comments of Paul Brown, a senior at Duke Divinity School, who called for unity amid disagreement.
“Sisters and brothers, our unity is grounded in Jesus Christ—not in the details of health care reform,” he wrote on the denomination’s Facebook site. “As a church that includes both Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush as members, we are free to disagree on various social issues, but we remain united in one Lord, one faith, and one baptism.”
Dave Michel, Northeast District Superintendent, Indiana Conference
My point was not "for" or "against" the legislation. When Pelosi stood there (with only an 11% approval rating), and stated that the UMC backed her proposal–she just gave millions of Americans (who disagree with her) another reason not to be Methodist. Whether she is right or wrong–or whether the legislation is good or bad–it is a polarizing issue. And for those who disagree with her (again, the majority of Americans)–they also see the UMC as being in disagreement with them.
Again, I wouldn't take the statement of a congressional leader about a Christian body as reflective of what that body actually stands for.
Your statement about our General Board folks is on target: they also get very partisan.
And if we go "ad populism" as an argument: 50% of US citizens are against health care reform (a very small percentage don't think it goes far enough), 46% are for it. And what of UM members voting 26 against, 18 for?
I'm just against partisanship: identifying any church as "the Republican Party at prayer" or "the Democratic party at prayer."
But my main point: your tweet "another reason not to be Methodist" wasn't very complete, and in fact misleading re: the content of your blog. And in the end, not edifying or helpful to the body.
Tim – I appreciate the context for your tweet. I was watching CSPAN and my twitter feed at the same time and wondered about your statement. Thanks for providing relevant information about your statement.
I only read this quickly, but is your point that we shouldn't be political? Jesus was crazy political, read the gospels with a new lens.
btw – hcr – germany in 1883, england 1911, france 1930, canada 1966 … until a few days ago usa was the only g8 country not to have it — what's to be undecided about? How many churches have doctors on staff anymore?
I can't really speak for Tim But if believe he is saying his feet are firmly planted in the foundation of Christ regardless of denominational ism. Also, while ministers in the church (our church) tend to refrain from making political statements we would also like the same agenda for our top political leaders to refrain from attempting to collect support by drawing focus to religious organizations. As far as doctors on staff or not, not sure how that plays into the socialist avenue our country has turned toward. Never knew churches had doctors on staff.
Gotta go back in history … churches invented our modern hospitals .. governments thought it was such a great idea that they took it over
Unfortunately in the america, big business took over caring for people.
That's the role of the church – cracks and crevices – fill the crack, make it mainstream, move aside to the next crack.
Yea, I knew churches were responsible for building hospitals but didn't realize it started from "doctors on staff". Thanks for clarifying.
Yes, they do have it, and look at the financial mess they are experiencing.
I have attended many denominations and not just for a couple weekends. I spent some serious time(years) at Baptist, General Baptist, Methodist, Church of God, Pentecostal, and Lutheran churches. We spend our time where my family and I have experienced the most spiritual growth. UMC is where we've spent the last seven years and will keep attending as long as they keep teaching us about Jesus the way they do. Tim, I am not hearing anything new from you on your statements. I believe that you have simply stated that you stand for what is good and right in grace and love through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Though the denomination’s chief legislative body, the General Conference, has taken no stand, it has been a strong advocate for universal health care.
The United Methodist Church in its law book states: “We believe it is a governmental responsibility to provide all citizens with health care.”
The 2008 United Methodist Book of Resolutions adds: “In the United States today, however, fulfillment of this duty is thwarted by simultaneous crises of access, quality, and cost. The result of these crises is injustice to the most vulnerable, increased risk to health care consumers, and waste of scarce public and private resources.”
Resolution 3201 in the United Methodist Book of Resolutions charges the United Methodist Board of Church and Society with primary responsibility for advocating health care for all in the United States Congress. The resolution was approved by the 2008 General Conference, the denomination’s highest policy-making body.
The article from which the above came can be found here: http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?...
As a UM pastor, I work hard to be non-political in public (at least insofar as "political" is commonly understood in our culture, i.e. Rep/Dem, Lib/Con). I'm a Jesus guy. I don't want my politics to turn someone away from Jesus.
Jesus seemed pretty good at offending just about everyone. I'm sure he'd do the same preaching in our pulpits today. So if I preach Jesus and his Kingdom values, I might end up offending people also. But only as long as it's Jesus, not me. I don't want one of those millstones around MY neck.
Some of your statements do not track with information found on the UMC.org site.
Quoting from the site:
- The majority of United Methodist lawmakers in the House voted against the plan.
- The United Methodist Church’s Social Principles that declares health care is a “basic human right,”
- While it has historically supported access to health care for all, the denomination’s top lawmaking assembly did not act on the specific legislation.
- Of United Methodist Church members who are in the 111th Congress, 26 voted no; 18 voted yes.
You infer in your blog that the UM Church somehow supported HR3972 or as you put it: “using its collective strength to influence the government to establish a hand-out system rather than calling on the church to be the church and meet those needs.” I see no such evidence other than some individual United Methodist members who supported the legislation, which is their right, but there was no formal support of this bill from of the denomination.
I too am a Methodist, and love it roots. In my few years in the UM Church, I have yet to meet the person you speak of, the person who follows Methodism before Christ. I have yet to find anything in "Methodism" that prohibits me from following Christ or making disciples for Him. I am fully committed to the Church's mission, which as you know is "to make disciples for Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world." I have found the church's political positions to be written with much grace and room for personal belief & opinion.
You say in your post that we have given the world many reasons not to become Methodists. What is this WE you speak of that turns people away? The United Methodist Church you belong or possibly some phantom church that really doesn't exist? I am mostly confused mostly by your tone, because you are a part of the United Methodist for work for one of its local congregations and yet it would seem that you do not really want to be a part of greater body of Christ within the UM church. My confusion could be best described in this scenario: If I worked for Ford, and I told everyone to be wary of Fords and to consider some other form of transportation, why would I continue working for Ford, and why would Ford Motor keep me on as a trusted staff person?
Like yourself, I too work for a United Methodist church, but my gut tells me that if I made such comments on my blog, I would not only be looking for some free health care, I would also be looking for a job.
* The General Board of Church and Society was charged by the UMC General Conference in 2008 to advocate for health insurance for all Americans provided by the government as "a basic human right." Read more: http://is.gd/aX6S6
* I'm glad you haven't met anyone who follows Methodism before Christ. I have found many. Along with people who follow Lutheranism before Christ, Catholicism before Christ, and their Baptist beliefs before Christ. Jesus found many too–they were called Pharisees and he spent a lot of time calling them out for putting their religion above Him. (I'm not making any comparisons or saying Methodists are any worse or better than other groups.)
* I don't think I've made one comment that says I don't want to be tainted by the Methodists in my congregation. Again, I've given 17 years of my life to serve in the system.
* You work in a church where you would be fired if you voiced an opinion about the decline of the denomination? It IS in decline. It can't be denied that millions have left. If we (those of us who care) don't talk about that–who will? If Ford was going down (which it's not), I would hope the employees would be allowed to discuss it and figure out ways to improve it. Remember, I said I spend scores of hours every year working with and resourcing Methodist pastors trying to make a difference.
Thanks for the reply. Thank you for your work and service to others, it has had a dramatic impact on many congregations, ours included. Thank you for speaking out and inviting others into the conversation. Like iron against iron, it has thus far sharpened me, and I trust the same for you my friend. The General Board may have approved, but not the General Conference of the Church, and not this particular member [and employee] of the United Methodist church. You have hit upon something that is very disheartening, much of the church is in decline [see Quitting Church by Julia Duin]. You are also are spot on, Pharisees still exist today, like chaff among wheat. However Jesus taught his early disciples not pull out the chaff and destroy the good stuff. [obvious loose paraphrase] By the way, my last comments were somewhat tongue and cheek, sorry, I may have over played my hand. Blessings and Peace.
I won't pretend to know all the details, even after reading the "official" news release from the UMNS. I'm a UM Pastor who has had to walk a fine line between having my own opinions and expressing them publicly. I fear that if I side with one or the other (publicly) I may damage possible opportunities to engage someone that doesn't yet know Jesus. For that reason, I won't say out loud how I feel about the healthcare debate.
I will say this though: The Social Principles of the United Methodist Church have continued to be the cause of our greatest debates and the reason for some of our leadership overstepping their bounds. The Board of Church and Society advocated for health care accessibility for all – I can agree with that. At the same time, I hope with all my heart that the general board didn't advocate this specific legislation. The handling of this bill was shady at best and to attach the name of a denomination to it does no one any good.
The fallout from Pelosi's thanks to the UMC has already been immense and Sunday isn't here yet. I think we're all missing out if we let this distract us too much.
I consider myself a Christian and for no particular reason I am not connected to any denomination. The comment above should be expanded upon. Did the entire church support it? Or just a local church in her district? I strongly believe that as Christians we backed out of the political arena as an entire body and are now faced with the repercussions. We need to get more involved in the process.
With a focus on just the last bullet of your post, I think we should be more concerned if all this contributes to "A reason not to be Christian?"
It could be re-written…"We (Christians) have given the public many reasons to not be Christian. In fact, every year more people decide to become former Christians. In my opinion, Sarah Palin's "Reload", Rush Limbaugh's "Wipe the [expletive]'s out who passed this legislation!", and the dozens of others who are being whipped into a frenzy give Americans "another reason not to be a Christian."
Thank you for your post, it is spot on. And candidly, it's disappointing that Tim has not replied. The truth is, there are many Christians that may not agree with Tim's political view of Nancy Pelosi. Perhaps more importantly, there may be non-believers looking for Christ that do not agree with his view. This is why politics have no place in the Church, regardless of denomination. The risk that one person attended GCC and was contemplating a step to God and then read this post and felt isolated or unaccepted is frightening to me. Our role is to spread the great story of Jesus and God's love to everyone who will listen. Tim, your comment about Pelosi justified an apology, not a debate. Vote how you want, but please focus on spreading the word of God publicly as you represent all of us who attend the Church and may or may not agree with your political views.
Sorry, I'm not able to reply to every comment. But, I agree with Kathy 100%.
None of my words were a political view about Nancy Pelosi or about health care reform. I apologize if they came across that way. On the day that health care legislation passed–Pelosi's approval rating was 11%. By citing the UMC as one of the supporters–she in essence gave the majority of Americans a reason to be against the UMC (rightly or wrongly, that's not the point). I just think its' unwise for a denomination that is already losing members by the millions–to become known at a national level primarily for a political issue that is unpopular. I'd much rather see the UMC known for changing people's lives, introducing them to Jesus and making disciples.
Hope that makes more sense.
Thank you Tim, your clarification is helpful. I would point out though that using "hand-outs" as your personal description does reveal a personal political view. The reality is identifying the bill as a hand-out is completely inaccurate and probably demeaning to those people who will benefit from the bill. The inverse of approval rating point is also true, mainly that if she had an 89% approval rating you'd be comfortable with her mentioning the Church's support. In this case, are you comfortable with alienating even 11% of a population that may or may not yet know Christ? Last point is that claiming the church is a substitute provider for the bill's coverage is naive. Even a fiscally strong church like GCC is no match for catastrophic health services over the long term.
I genuinely appreciate your willingness to discuss the matter. You and your team have done an exceptional job creating a church that my family is lucky to call home. I just have strong feelings about the focus of the church (not politics)!
Reg Attender, your "strong feelings" have a hostle flavor. Even though some of the things that you're pointing out are true, they loose their weight in your presentation. For someone that has "strong feelings about the focus of the church (not politics)" I see most of your reply is about politics. We're not going to church, we are called to be the church. That means that what we say and the way we say it should represent Jesus. I dont believe Tim missed that mark if you'll read all that is written here.
Unfortunately, it seems you have confused your idealogy with your Xnity. I have never viewed RL as a Xn and he does not speak for the church… and never has claimed to as far as I know.
I'm a UM pastor and support health care reform based on the parable of the Good Samaritan who provided care for someone who needed it.
I think that it is because of the failure of the church that the government stepped in and felt they had to provide health care reform. About 3-4 years ago, Bono stood before the church during the leadership summitt and called the church out for not acting on AIDS in Africa. Maybe this should be a calling out for the church to be the church. To reach out to the 30,000,000 + that are without health insurance. I also think Joe Donnelly should be commended for standing his ground on his Pro Life stance. He and others made the President cave in by forcing the signing of the executive order or else they were not going to vote for the bill. I have no problem with the UMC's stance, they are for helping the less fortunate……..isn't that what we, as Christians, are supposed to be doing?
This reform is not perfect, but it is a start that can be re-worked as needed. It has only been less then a week, I think we need to give this legislation a chance. Who knows, it just might work. I strongly disagree with your Tweet.
You make some great points Barry.
Thanks Tim
I think the church needs to get really busy being the church, no matter what denomination it might be.
I've been a U.M. for 40 + years and I sometimes questions their direction with politics also. I feel if we were about making disciples everything would fall into place with God as our ultimate leader in this world. Wondering your viewpoint on The Clergy letter Project ?