Category Archive: Articles

Dec 20 2012

Support Independent Methodist News

Support the United Methodist Reporter

2012 is coming to a close and should the Mayan’s be incorrect, the earth will continue to turn after tomorrow and the sun will rise on God’s earth. Assuming that there will be a 2013 I want to encourage you to support one of our great front line sources of United Methodist news.

The United Methodist Reporter has been HUGE in keeping everyone ‘in the know’ this crazy year of Methodism that 2012 has been. From General Conference coverage, Call to Actions, Bishop Bledsoe, Bishops Elections, tragedies, Cokesbury, as well as introducing us to a host of new UM commentary voices.

As a curator for the Methoblog and our Twitter Account, I can say without hesitation that their breaking news and challenging writing has been at the core of our United Methodist conversations this year.

What you may not know is that the United Methodist Reporter is a stand alone, independent, non-profit that supports the ministries of the church but does not benefit from monies within the system. They survive because we want them to & feel they are a valuable voice in our denomination.

With all this said the times on a traditional newsprint publication are very tough. UMR has begun transitions and business practices to help itself with digital print and communications services. However, at it’s core they still want to share the news of the church.


You can help support our gold standard Independent Methodist News source by subscribing to a physical paper or digital paper for $26, or less, a year.

Yes, for less than a family meal out you can subscribe to UMR and do your part in helping to ensure that we have a cutting edge independent news source.

Order a Years Worth of Reporter Papers for $26

Order a Years Worth of Digital Editions of Reporter Papers for $20

Disclosure: As I, Gavin, write this letter to you today. I am a standing member of the Board of Directors for UMR. Let me be clear that my petition here is to encourage our Methoblog and Methodist community in supporting a voice that we all benefit from. I get no financial gain from any subscription. Your support goes to the staff at all levels from paper press operators to Sam who leads the news reporting team. Even if you do not plan on reading the papers yourself, order one or two and take to church as coffee table placement and know that you are just chipping in for the greater good. That is what I do.

If You Are Curious

The image at the top of this page is a large portrait hanging in the UMR offices. It is from the early days of UMR when it was the Texas Christian Advocate (and a few other names in the mix of that history). What I found fascinating was the cutting edge nature of rolling a printing press around from town to town to share the news. Crazy Methodists. It would take a bigger horse drawn wagon to do this today. The ethos of that early ‘getting out’ and sharing the news is more present now than it has been in decades. I would hope we all see that and support it so it stays part of our present and not part of our historic past.

Permanent link to this article:

Mar 24 2012

COMMENTARY: The Frustration of Assumptions

Recently I had the opportunity to be in conversation with a leading member of the Interim Operations Team (IOT) regarding the Missional Manifesto for the People Called United Methodist document that I have been a part of. Our “manifesto” was written in part because we felt like the Call to Action (CTA) report and the work of the IOT focused almost exclusively on church structure and practices and not enough on values and theology. This leader was expressing his support for our work, recognizing that it has an important place in the conversation about who we are as United Methodists, but in the midst of the conversation he expressed his own frustration with some of the criticism he had heard regarding the work of the IOT.

I think my frustration sometimes comes when folks assume, because this is not specifically mentioned at each turn, that those on the IOT don’t hold these convictions. I would guess that each of the team members would not only say Yes and Amen, but that they take seriously the living of this document. Our conversations regularly focus on these things, our prayers are centered on these things and our reason for the work we do is that we hope the church might be more focused on being an instrument of God’s mission.

I understand his frustration, for there are indeed many times when the requirements of publishing documents and creating presentations in a limited time frame forces one to focus on specific proposals and suggestions, and not the underlying process that led to those proposals. The press release on new ways of doing things rarely contains much about the hours of conversations, prayer, study, etc. behind the suggested changes, leaving much room for folks to speculate on the motives behind those changes. I have little doubt that both the CTA Task Force and the IOT have spent much time in prayer thinking about the core of who we are as United Methodists. These are folks who love our church, who want that best for our church, and have given countless hours toward working to improve how we function as a body.

Unfortunately I fear their own process and choices about who should be at the table has partially led to the perceptions that somehow the entire process has been disconnected from spiritual and theological concerns. The entire IOT was composed of persons who worship in a large congregation context, who (with the exception of a single active pastor and the few bishops) were lifted up for their business and organizational expertise than their spiritual practices and/or theological acumen. Certainly all are persons of faith, but in the press releases and other information about the team, there was little to suggest that their ultimate concerns in examining our church’s structures would be balanced between both theological/missional concerns on the one hand, and organizational efficiency on the other. This focus on their organizational leadership skills led to the disconnect that several in the UMC face today.

Yet another issue is at play here. I think those in leadership of the CTA and IOT assumed a shared core theology and identity for the people called United Methodists that may not, in point of fact, be as universally shared. We tend to be a church with several generations of persons present, with each generation having experienced a different identity of who we are. We continue to have many leaders whose paradigm for understanding our church was formed in the 1950’s when the Methodist Church was at its height numerically, but when being a good Methodist had to do as much with being a good citizen who lived a moral life than any sense of call to radical discipleship. Those of us in later generations experienced a church in which faith was interpreted in light of the call to social justice, while others have ONLY experienced a denomination in decline and much thrashing about to stem the tide of losses. Certainly, I continue to believe there was a revival of sorts in the late 1980’s and early ‘90’s in which the UMC regained a deeper connection to the scriptures (through the Disciple Bible Study movement) as well as a deeper connection to Wesleyan theology and practices (through the work of folks like Bishop Kenneth Carder, David Lowes Watson, Thomas Frank, Russ Richey, and Steve Manskar). There are other streams as well – the Good News stream, the charismatic stream, and more and more the international stream, with special influences arising from Africa. With all of these streams in play, it has become harder and harder to maintained a clear sense of who we are, and more importantly why we believe God is calling us as United Methodists to continue to be present in the world. Given the complexity of addressing the competing claims of these various theological streams, it becomes much easier to focus on practices and structure, for the deeper conversations we need to have are hard and will take time and commitment that in fact may not be fully present.

And that is where I think some of the frustration about the work of the CTA and IOT lands. It’s not in that we don’t find value in what they are doing. No, it’s that what they have done doesn’t seem to address the deeper issues of a church which doesn’t have a clear sense of calling and mission. They may have had those conversations internally – in fact, I am sure they have as my friend shared above. But the rest of the church, for very valid procedural reasons, hasn’t been invited to the table to be a part of that conversation as well, and we all know that the legislative behemoth that is General Conference simply does not allow space or time for those kinds of conversations. Both of our frustrations are valid – theirs which doesn’t understand why folks are questioning their theological and spiritual intentions, and others which wants to be at the table but are separated from the conversation. Until we can find space for a broader conversation on who we are and God’s calling for us as a church, then we will continue to flounder away with faulty assumptions about the intentions of one another.

Reconciling God, help us not to make assumptions about intentions based on appearances, and help us to listen deeply to the concerns of one another. Break down the walls that divide us and help us all to clearly hear your desires and intentions for our church. Send your grace in special measure so that we may be fully engaged in proclaiming your kingdom and making disciples so that the world will be transformed. Amen.

Permanent link to this article:

Mar 21 2012

United Methodist Layperson Addresses Sexuality Issue

Artie Van Why is a United Methodist layperson in Pennsylvania. His story is like many — he spent many years away from God and the church, but after surviving the horror of the World Trade Center disaster (he worked across the street from the buildings) he found himself searching for God, and when he moved from New York to Lancaster, PA, he found himself drawn to the First United Methodist Church of Lancaster. In the early days he was reticent to share that he was a gay man, but he became more involved in the life of the church, he shared his identity with others in the church who loved and embraced him. He eventually joined the church, and is part of new ministry in the church called the Sacred Worth Team, which is designed to open up space for conversation about sexuality among members of the church.

In the movement toward General Conference, Van Why and his friend and mentor, Pastor Bill Cherry, attended a listening session held by the delegation of the Eastern Pennsylvania Annual Conference. First UMC Lancaster has submitted petitions to the General Conference asking for changes in language about sexual orientation in the Book of Disciples, and Van Why and Cherry wanted to share a statement about the issue to the 100 or so people in attendance.

“I have to be honest and say I wasn’t prepared for some of the reactions and discussion,” Van Why said. “There were certainly supportive people present but I heard some of, what I consider, hateful words about the gay community.  I knew there was a divide in the denomination but never really comprehended the reality of it till that Listening Session.  I left quite discouraged and disheartened.  There’s a part of me that questions if I want to stay with the denomination.  But there is also a part of me that wants to be an agent of change; if that is even possible.”

Van Why has published his statement to the listening session at It’s his hope that it can be a starting point for conversation about how the United Methodist Church addresses the concerns of the gay community.

For more information on the ministries of the First United Methodist Church of Lancaster, PA, please visit



Permanent link to this article: