What about the Methodist Church?

Methodist Church (3)

(Part 3)

With special emphasis

on the United Methodist Church

Scriptural Evaluation of the United Methodist Church, with Historical Background and Doctrinal Discussion

Many of the Concerns that we would have about the United Methodist Church

Now we must discuss a number of the prominent teachings, beliefs, and practices of the United Methodist Church. These should be of concern to any Methodist member who retains some belief in the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures and who loves the Lord of Scripture.

  • The United Methodist Church is a denomination unknown in the Bible.

The early Christians were corporately known as “the assembly [church] of God” (1 Corinthians 1:2), the “community [church] of Christ” (Romans 16:16), the “household of God” (1 Timothy 3:15), and “Christ’s body”.[1] These terms were not exclusive, official titles; however, they were simply descriptive of some aspect or characteristic of the early Christians. Why should today be different?

Why should there be a United Methodist Church? Why should there be a Free Methodist Church, a Wesleyan Church, an Evangelical Methodist Church, or a Methodist Episcopal Church? Why should there be one or two dozen different Methodist Churches or two dozen Baptist denominations, or two dozen Presbyterian Churches?  If the Lord said that He would build His ekklesia, His assembly or community, how can we rightfully change this? As we continue with these points, our concerns will become more evident.

  • Individual members of the United Methodist Church are known as “Methodists”—those who are characterized by John Wesley’s “methods.”

In the New Testament, those who followed Jesus were simply known as “Christians” (1 Peter 4:16; Acts 11:26), “disciples” (Acts 13:52), “saints” (Romans 1:7), “believers” (Acts 5:14), “brothers” and “sisters” (Acts 16:40; James 2:15), and “children of God” (1 John 3:1-2). Even these terms were not official or denominational, but descriptive of their lives and relationships with each other and with God.

Why shouldn’t we be content with Biblical terms instead of insisting on labeling ourselves after some method of meeting? And we must remember that sometimes Methodist groups are called “Wesleyan,” a violation of Paul’s command at 1 Corinthians 1:10-13 to not call ourselves after a teacher or preacher.[2]

  • The United Methodist Church has elevated men to the office of “bishop” and these men are over a plurality of ministers and churches.

In New Testament times, one position or work was called the “overseer” (KJV, “bishop). The overseer had to meet clearly listed qualifications, such as being men (males), being married men (not single men), having believing children, and being exemplary in life (1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9). These overseers were also called “elders” or “shepherds” (KJV, “pastors”). These three terms were used interchangeably, according to the specific needs and given contexts (see Acts 20:17, 28; Ephesians 4:11; Titus 1:5-7; 1 Peter 5:1-3). These overseers or elders were to be appointed in “every city” where there was an assembly (Titus 1:5). These workers were “among” the believers in a given locality (1 Peter 5:1-2), thus they were not from a different territory or location. In fact, these elders were to be appointed for “every church” (Acts 14:23) instead of being responsible for more than one church, such as churches in a  diocese.

It is also interesting to note that the overseers/elders were always in the plurality: when there were qualified men, there were more than one in each assembly (cf. Acts 11:30; 14:23; 20:17; 1 Timothy 5:17; James 5:14). We can see that the office of “Bishop” in the United Methodist Church is far removed from the simple overseers or elders found in Christ’s body of the first century.  In fact, the United Methodist denomination appears to be totally confused on the New Testament positions. As we have noticed above, the elder is also known as an overseer (KJV has “bishop”) or shepherd (KJV has “pastor”). These are not three different “officers” but a single position. The evangelist, preacher, or proclaimer is yet another position or work (cf. Acts 21:8; 2 Timothy 4:5) and not a separate “officer” called a “minister” or “pastor.”  Further, the “servant” (deacon, from the Greek diakonos) is a separate position, one in which a qualified man (male) “serves” a local assembly and helps the elders/shepherds.

The UMC deviates from the New Testament arrangement in various ways. “A minister who is a deacon may be elected to the order of elders by an Annual Conference. This must also be by formal vote.”[3] This confuses a minister and a deacon. “The ordination of elders is a much more elaborate ceremony than that of deacons. In this ceremony other elders join with the bishop in placing their hands upon the head of the person to be ordained, while the bishop prays that he/she may be imbued with the Holy Spirit ‘for the office and work of an elder in the Church of God.’”[4] Where do we read of an “ordination”? And notice again that the position of “elder” and “bishop” is confused here. Additionally, note  that in the UMC a woman may be “ordained” to serve as an elder, something that 1 Timothy 3:1-2 and Titus 1:5-6 plainly forbid.

We have seen that the elder is shepherd (pastor) and overseer (bishop), but notice this statement about the UMC: “Pastor—officially known as a ‘preacher in charge,” and this officer is to preach the gospel, “to administer the sacraments, perform marriage ceremonies, and bury the dead,” and “to have general charge of the worship of the Church. . . .”[5] It is true that the preacher (or evangelist) is to preach the gospel, but the elders/overseers should teach and be over the assemblies. Further, Scripture gives no precise directives who may baptize people, perform marriages, or bury the dead.

Continuing our examination of United Methodist officers, we read, “The bishop in United Methodist polity is the highest officer of the Church and the executive and general administrator of the Church’s work and program in the Annual Conferences assigned to him. Bishops are elected by the Jurisdictional Conferences and are consecrated, not ordained.”[6] This greatly confuses leadership and order that should be plain to any reader of the Scriptures.  The “bishop” (“overseer” is a better translation) is the same as the elder and the shepherd and is no higher. He is certainly not the “highest officer” of a denomination or diocese. Further, the overseer or elder (or pastor) is a local position and work, one that goes no further than a local assembly.  Further, elders or overseers were “appointed” in every congregation (Acts 14:23) or “appointed” in every city (Titus 1:5)—presumably because there would be one small assembly in each town.[7]

  • The Organization of the United Methodist Church is very different from the arrangement of the body of Christ depicted in the New Testament.

In the early community of Christ, we find that each congregation was independent, united only in love and a commitment to the Lord Jesus. If each assembly had qualified men, there would be a plurality of leaders called “elders,” “overseers,” or “shepherds” (Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9; James 5:14).  These men were responsible only for the local Christians in the assembly where they labored. They were not responsible for Christians in other congregations or other provinces (1 Peter 5:1-3; Acts 14:23).

The United Methodist denomination radically changes this God-given structure and organization. Here is one description that shows the complex arrangement within United Methodism:

It [the United Methodist denomination] functions through bishops, district superintendents, preachers-in-charge, Board secretaries, and local church officials who may be called Executive Officers; also through a chain of conferences—General Conference, Jurisdictional Conference, Annual Conference, District Conference, Charge Conference, and Church Conference—which may be termed Legislative or Administrative Bodies; and also through the regulations and provisions of the Book of Discipline which in addition to outlining the rights and duties of the executive and legislative bodies of the Church, provides a body of trial and administrative law which heads up the Judicial Council or “Supreme Court” of the Church.[8]

This complex and involved arrangement is further described and contrasted with what many readers may assume to be true:

The United Methodist Church uses an episcopal system of governance, which means bishops provide the top leadership. All bishops (active and retired) are members of the Council of Bishops, which is required to meet at least once a year.

Bishops are directed to provide oversight of the entire church but have specific leadership responsibilities in a geographical area, called an episcopal area. An episcopal area is comprised of one or more annual conferences. There are 50 episcopal areas in the U.S. and 18 episcopal areas in the central conferences.

Both men and women can be elected bishop. The only requirement to be elected bishop is that the person is an ordained elder in The United Methodist Church. Bishops in the U.S. generally serve one area for eight years (two four-year terms) before they are assigned to another area. The Executive Secretary (a retired bishop serving a four-year term) is the chief operating officer for the council in their permanent, staffed office in Washington, D.C.[9]

Hopefully, any unbiased reader of the above excerpt will see what an unscriptural—even anti-Scriptural—such an involved, complex, hierarchical arrangement this denomination has devised. What is wrong with the arrangement that Christ and the apostles provided 2,000 years ago? Must we be like the Catholic Church that claims that it has been given the right to change New Testament government and Scriptural positions into the complex organization that centers in the Vatican in Rome? The United Methodist Church has done the same in a lesser degree.

God warned Moses about the building of the tabernacle in the wilderness. He said to this trusted servant and leader, “See . . . that you make all things according to the pattern which was shown you on the mountain” (Hebrews 8:6). Similarly, God wants us today to order all things in the body of Christ according to the pattern that He gave through the “apostles and prophets” in the Holy Scriptures (cf. Ephesians 2:20).

Note this description of the General Conference: “This is the supreme governing and lawmaking body of United Methodism and one of the most influential church bodies in the world. It meets every four years and directs the affairs of the church. It is composed of ministers and laymen in equal numbers, all of whom are elected as delegates by the Annual Conference.”[10] But consider: where in the New Testament do we read of a “supreme governing and lawmaking body” other than the assembly of the Lord?  And we must remember that even the body of Christ can make no “laws” but simply obeys the laws of the Lord (Galatians 6:2). How can it be that there is a governing “body” within another “body”—one that is a denomination?  Where do we read of any “ministers” or “laymen” in the body of Christ?  Where do we read of “delegates” or of a “Conference” like this?

Notice this further description:

Above the sixty-four Annual Conferences are five jurisdictional conferences, established for geographical convenience in administrative matters. These meet quadrennially, at times determined by the Council of Bishops, to elect new bishops and to name the members of the larger boards and commissions. Outside the continental U.S., central conferences correspond to jurisdictional conferences; they meet quadrennially and, when authorized to do so, may elect their own bishops. All bishops are elected for life (except in some over-seas conferences, where the term is four years), and a Council of Bishops meets at least once a year “for the general oversight and promotion of the temporal and spiritual affairs of the entire church.”

The General Conference consists of 1,000 delegates, half laity and half clergy, elected on a proportional basis by the Annual Conferences. The Judicial Council determines the constitutionality of any act of the General Conference that may be appealed, and it hears and determines any appeal from a bishop’s decision on a question of law, in any district or annual, central, or jurisdictional conference.[11]

You should be able to see that the Bible doesn’t teach such things as a “Conference,” “jurisdictional conference,” Council of Bishops, a General Conference, delegates, and so forth. All of this is both extra-Biblical and anti-Biblical and should be renounced by those who wish to emulate the early Christians. This denomination also has a wide array of different programs and services:

In social ministries and education, the church operates or supports 225 retirement homes and long-term care facilities, 70 hospital and health-care facilities, 50 child-care facilities, 30 ministries for persons with disabilities, 8 two-year colleges, 82 four-year colleges, 10 universities, and 13 theological schools. United Methodists give more than $3.65 billion annually for clergy support and benevolences, local church building and debt retirement, and operating expenses.[12]

We search in vain for anything approaching this kind of conglomeration of agencies in the New Testament.

  • The United Methodist Church is a full-fledged religious institution.

This religious body openly admits to being a denomination or a religious organization or ecclesiastical institution. It has its own structure, its own bylaws, its own doctrine, its own organization. In fact, local churches are under the control of the central authority. If a local congregation wishes to depart from the United Methodist denomination, they will immediately discover that they don’t even have control over their own church structure for it is owned by and controlled by the super-organization!

Methodist Church

The United Methodist Church is a mainline denomination with highly-developed structure:

The church created a system that in some ways parallels that of the U.S. government when it came to America. The church has a General Conference, its legislative branch; a Council of Bishops, somewhat like an executive branch; and a nine-member Judicial Council, the judicial branch.[13]

This denomination is not at all local but worldwide in nature, with a central governing body that determines the laws and regulations to which all Methodists are accountable:

The General Conference is an international body of nearly 1,000 delegates that meets every four years. The delegates are elected by annual conferences (at annual conference sessions) to attend General Conference. They represent all annual conferences around the world. Half of the delegates are laity (non-clergy members), half are clergy.

Bishops attend the General Conference but cannot vote. Different bishops serve as presiding officers during the conference. Other bishops cannot speak unless permission is specifically granted by the delegates.

During General Conference, delegates discuss and vote on petitions and resolutions proposed by individuals, agencies, annual conferences, and other groups within the denomination. These actions result in a revision of the Book of Discipline, the denomination’s book of law, and Book of Resolutions, policies of the denomination on current social issues.

It is at General Conference where delegates wrestle with today’s issues in light of scriptural teachings and the church’s understanding of that teaching. Here is where the church’s official stands and church policies are made regarding such issues as human sexuality, abortion, war and peace, as well as determination of ministries and funding.[14]

This is very different from the local structure of New Testament congregations in which each assembly was united to others in love but not in structure. We offer these quotations to show how radically different the UMC is from the New Testament plan and pattern.

In New Testament times, each congregation was autonomous, i.e., each assembly was on the same level as other assemblies. Of course, early Christians met in homes (cf. Romans 16:5; 1 Corinthians 16:19; Colossians 4:15; Philemon 2), thus there was no commonly-owned property. Meeting places were not controlled by a super-organization from another area.

Numerous extra-biblical offices are needed for such a denominational structure. For example, there may be the College of Bishops, the District Superintendents, the Judicial Council, the senior pastors, the associate pastors, and many Directors of different ministries. In contrast, in the early body of Christ, there were such positions as the apostle (1 Corinthians 12:28, 29; 2 Corinthians 12:12; Ephesians 4:11), prophet (Acts 13:1; Ephesians 4:11; Acts 21:9), overseer/elder (1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9), deacon (Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:8-13), teacher (Acts 13:1; Ephesians 4:11, James 3:1), and evangelist/herald (Acts 21:8; Ephesians 4:11; 2 Timothy 4:5). Denominational positions or offices were unknown.

  • The Methodist Church accepts a denominational statement of faith and discipline.

Various written documents guide the church to this day. The Doctrines and Discipline is reissued very four years.  The Apostles’ Creed may be repeated every Sunday in some Methodist Churches.  And the 25 Articles of Religion are Wesley’s abridgment of the 39 Articles of the Church of England.[15] Wesley strongly stood for an Arminian interpretation of doctrine and the Scriptures (in contrast to Calvinism). As for the Articles of Religion that Wesley stressed so much, these became less and less important. These Articles were placed in the beginning of the Discipline, giving the impression that this would be the most important guide for Methodists. But this was very misleading.  The Study Commission on Doctrine and Doctrinal Standards stated, “They have remained unchanged, unchallenged—and largely disregarded.”[16]

The Methodist Church is bound to keep the written rules in the Discipline.  Section III, Article I, states: “The General Conference shall not revoke, alter, or change our Articles of Religion or establish any new standards or rules of doctrine contrary to our present existing and established standards of doctrine.” Article II states: “The General Conference shall not revoke, alter, or change our Confession of Faith.” And Article III states: “The General Conference shall not change or alter any part or rule of our government so as to do away with episcopacy or destroy the plan of our itinerant general superintendency.” Article V states: “The General Conference shall not revoke or change the General Rules of Our United Societies.”[17]

This demonstrates that if a sincere Methodist learns that there are errors and unscriptural teachings in the Discipline, there is no way they can be changed. It restricts the denomination from learning the truth of God more clearly and discarding false teachings that can be found in the existing documents. All that can be done is to leave the denomination and start over! It all depends on whether one is loyal to the faulty Methodist documents or whether he is committed to the inspired and authoritative Word of God as his sole source of living.

We must give a disclaimer here, for over the years, the earlier Discipline has been altered, regardless of the rather clear statements above.  We read that “by the end of the nineteenth century, Methodist theology in America had become decidedly eclectic, with less specific attention paid to its Wesleyan sources.”[18] We read further: “At the beginning of the twentieth century . . . the waning force of doctrinal discipline and the decreasing influence of the Wesleyan theological heritage among the American Methodists, along with minor but significant changes in the wording of the Book of Discipline regarding doctrinal standards, led to a steady dilution of the force of the Articles of Religion as the Church’s constitutional standards of doctrine.”[19] Again, “These years were times of theological and ethical controversy within Methodism as new patterns of thought clashed with the more familiar themes and styles of the previous two centuries.”[20]

Keep in mind that Methodists accepted liberal concepts on the inspiration and authority of the Bible. They increasingly accepted the false and destructive evolutionary views that Charles Darwin introduced in his Origin of the Species (1859). They were at the forefront of the “social gospel” of the nineteenth century. They accepted the ecumenical movement and the feminist movement.[21]

But the fact that these human Methodist documents are retained give evidence that the Bible itself is somehow minimized. People receive the impression that the “answers” are found in the Discipline and the Articles, while the Bible is not that important. In reality, the Word of God must be our only standard of faith and practice!  Paul says of the sacred writings of his day (the 39 Old Testament books):

From childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:15-17).

Peter said that God’s “divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence” (2 Peter 1:3). Paul instructs us, “Retain the standard of sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus” (2 Timothy 1:13).  The words of Paul were “the Lord’s commandment” and these must be our standard of truth and conduct (1 Corinthians 14:37). The words of Paul (and the other apostles and prophets) constituted the “word of God” that “also performs its work in you who believe” (1 Thessalonians 2:13). We know that nothing was to be added or taken from the words of Revelation (22:18-19) and this could be said in regard to all of the new covenant writings (our 27 books of the New Testament).

Moses said of the Law of God (the first covenant or Mosaic covenant): “You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you” (Deuteronomy 4:2; cf. 12:32; Proverbs 30:6). When God gave His written revelation, nothing more was needed. As someone said, if we add something to God’s word, we have too much; if we take from God’s word, we have too little. And if we have something exactly like the Word of God, then it is unneeded.

  • The United Methodist Church has become leaders in the liberal Ecumenical Movement of uniting various denominations regardless of beliefs and practices.

One example of this movement is the fact that the Methodist bodies became “charter members of the Federal Council of Churches, which adapted the Social Creed of the Southern Methodists for its own social statement.”[22] The United Methodist Church “has become one of the building blocks of the liberal Protestant establishment. . . . Its constituent bodies were active in the formation of the National Council of Churches, the World Council of Churches, and the World Methodist Council.”[23] One report remarks, “The church also gives considerable financial support to the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A.”[24] Yet another report says, “Methodists have been active in ecumenical relations and church mergers in the twentieth century. . . . The Methodist contribution to ecumenism has been substantial in terms of both the investment of money and the talents of individuals.”[25]

Methodist Church (7)

The UMC definitely is at the forefront of efforts to bring together people from different denominations and bring together agencies and organizations. Notice an array of these organizations:

  • Pan Methodist Commission
  • Churches Uniting in Christ (CUIC)
  • Church World Service
  • National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States
  • World Council of Churches
  • World Methodist Council

These are umbrella institutions that would involve people from many different denominations, believing different things, and living different lifestyles. Scripture warns against being “bound together” with unbelievers (2 Corinthians 6:14-18)—and surely there are people involved here who would disbelieve many basic truths of Scripture (as we earlier noticed regarding the UMC ministers and members).

Further, since the New Testament organization was entirely local and congregational, we can see that denomination-wide involvement in ecumenical organizations would be impossible. It is interesting to note that the groups, organizations, and institutions that are part of the ecumenical movement are the more liberal ones in which Biblical authority has little importance.

  • The United Methodist Church differs radically from New Testament instruction regarding women’s participation.

We may think that the United Methodist Church and other liberal mainline churches, along with Pentecostal and Charismatic churches, have insisted on women’s participation only in the past century or two. However, in reality, John Wesley promoted the practice! He licensed women to preach in the mid-eighteenth century![26] Some attribute this positive stance to John’s mother, Susanna Wesley, but whatever the source, it would not have come from Holy Scripture.

On the one hand, it is true that the Bible encourages women to be active in good deeds of charity (Acts 9:39) and hospitality (1 Timothy 5:14). Women could open their homes for gatherings of Christians (Acts 12:12) and even do the work of service in the assembly (Romans 16:1). A Christian woman could teach younger women and children (Titus 2:4-5) and explain the way of the Lord to outsiders along with a husband (Acts 18:26).  A woman could also serve as a prophetess (Acts 21:9; cf. 2:17-21) and could pray along with men (Acts 1:14).[27]

At the same time, there were clear restrictions in the New Testament for a woman participating publicly. These prohibitions are plain and must not be violated. For example, no woman wrote Scripture, no woman was an apostle, and no woman was an evangelist.  Only men (males) were to be overseers (elders or shepherds) in the assembly (1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9). Only men were to serve as deacons (1 Timothy 3:8-13). Only men were to lead publicly in prayer (1 Timothy 2:8; the Greek, aner, means a male). Women were not permitted to “teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet” (1 Timothy 2:12; cf. vv. 11-12). Women were to “keep silent in the churches” for “it is improper for a woman to speak in church” (1 Corinthians 14:34-35).

All of this seems quite restrictive in light of the modern feminist movement that began in the nineteenth century. We may think of the Holiness movement and the Pentecostal movement and the wide “open door” that they provided women. Women were permitted to teach in public, to preach in public, and even to lead over men—something that the Word of God clearly prohibits (1 Timothy 2:11-15). The contemporary United Methodist Church permits “women being ordained as pastors, or bishops.”[28]  One volume writes of how a young person may become a “minister” in the UMC.  We read that “he/she” must have gifts to enter the “full-time ministry.”[29] On the contrary, God would not give the “gift” of ministry to a woman when He has forbidden the woman from teaching or exercising authority over men (1 Timothy 2:11-12; cf. 1 Corinthians 14:33-37).

Methodist Church (9)

We read this account: “In 1956 the Discipline was amended to permit the ordination of women. A number of Methodist women had engaged in preaching, including Maggie Van Cott, who secured a preacher’s license in 1966 and pursued a vigorous itinerant ministry for thirty years, as well as the black washerwoman Amanda Smith. But the northern church explicitly refused to permit women to be ordained in 1880. The question remained in constitutional limbo in the Methodist Protestant Church after a woman’s ordination in 1880 was declared unlawful. In 1868 the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church removed the term “male” from its ordination regulations, and in 1896 a female deacon was ordained and two years later an elder.”[30]

Another source identifies 1956 as the door that opened to allow full female involvement:

On May 4, 1956, in Minneapolis, Minnesota the General Conference of the Methodist Church approved full clergy rights for women. This was done by adding one sentence to the Book of discipline: “All foregoing paragraphs, chapters and sections of Part III {of the Book of Discipline} shall apply to women as well as to men.” Bishops were now required to appoint every pastor in good standing, regardless of gender. Maud Jensen was the first woman to be granted full clergy rights after this decision, in what is now the Central Pennsylvania Annual Conference.

Grace Huck was another woman accepted into probationary status as part of this historic vote, and she was received into full connection in 1958. She recalls the resistance to her ministry by a male member of her church in one of her early appointments. She has been quoted as saying that when the district superintendent told the congregation he was appointing a woman minister, one man shouted, “there will be no skirts in this pulpit while I’m alive.” She also noted that later he became one of her best supporters.[31]

Since that time, not only local ministers but bishops have come from the ranks of women. It would seem that the UMC sees no boundaries to the public participation—and leadership—of women. The door has been completely opened without limit:

In 1968, when the United Methodist Church was formed from the Methodist Church and the Evangelical United Brethren Church, Methodist women clergy were afforded the right of full connection

In 1980, the first woman, Marjorie Matthews, was elected and consecrated as a bishop within the United Methodist Church. In 1984, the first African-American woman, Leontine T. Kelly was elected and consecrated as a bishop. In 2005, Rosemarie Wenner was the first women to be elected bishop outside the United States. She was elected by the Germany Central Conference.

Over 12,000 women serve as United Methodist clergy at all levels, from bishops to local pastors. As of 2006, 16 women had been appointed as bishops. To try to address the lack of women of color in faculty positions at United Methodist Seminaries, the Board of Higher Education and Ministry created a scholarship program, which has over 40 participants and more than 22 graduates with doctorate degrees in theology.[32]

One would think that both Methodist ministers, bishops, and laity would rise up in opposition to this blatant disregard of Biblical authority, but there apparently is little resistance to this trend. It is interesting that not only did the Methodist Church here violate clear apostolic teachings, but women obviously violated the Biblical instructions that women remain silent in the assemblies of the church (1 Corinthians 14:33-37; cf. 1 Timothy 2:11-12).

  • The United Methodist Church fails to baptize according to the New Testament teaching and practice.

We prefer not to have a detailed study of the Biblical material here, but it is important that we cover at least some of the basic aspects of baptism since it is such a vital teaching and practice. In His Great Commission, Jesus said, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you” (Matthew 28:18-20a). Another account of this commission is found at Mark 16:15-16: “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.”

From these two accounts, we learn several important aspects to baptism: (1) The apostles were to make disciples of all the nations. (2) These disciples were to be made through two means: (a) baptizing them, and (b) teaching those who are baptized. (3) The baptism is into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, which evidently means to be “baptized into the possession of” God or into “a relationship with” God. (4) Baptism is a response to the gospel that is preached. (5) One must believe in the gospel of Christ and then be baptized on this basis. (6) The one who believes and has been baptized will be saved.

As we examine the remainder of the New Testament, we receive a fuller view of the meaning, subjects, and action of baptism. First, notice the meaning or purpose of baptism. Baptism is related to the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38; Colossians 2:12-13), the reception of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38-39; Galatians 3:26-27 with 4:6), the washing away of sin (Acts 22:16), entering Christ Jesus and His death (Romans 6:3-5; Galatians 3:26-27), spiritual circumcision (Colossians 2:11-12), and salvation (Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21).

Second, notice the subjects of baptism. Baptism was only given to those who wished to become disciples (Matthew 28:18-20). It was given to those who were willing to repent of their sins or die to their former life (Acts 2:38-41; Romans 6:1-5) and were willing to place their faith or belief in Christ Jesus as the Son of God and the Lord of life (Acts 8:12, 35-39; 16:14-16, 31-34; 18:8; Galatians 3:26-27; Colossians 2:12). In baptism one “calls” on the name of the Lord Jesus (Acts 22:16). This shows that only responsible people can be Scripturally baptized. Babies and young children are not qualified to be baptized (cf. Acts 8:12).

Third, notice the act or action of baptism. The Greek term baptizo, from which we derive the English “baptize,” is a term that means “to immerse, to dip, to submerge, or to overwhelm.”  The Greek scholar, W.E. Vine, says that the noun baptisma consists of “the process of immersion, submersion and emergence.”[33] Another Greek authority says that baptisma means “immersion” and baptismos means “an act of dipping or immersion.”[34] This is illustrated in the fact that when one is baptized, he goes to the water, he goes down into the water, he then is baptized (immersed), and then he comes up out of the water (see Matthew 3:16; Mark 1:9-10; Acts 8:36-39). Baptism also requires “much water” to do the immersing (John 3:23). Similarly, we must remember that in baptism, one is “buried” with Christ and “rises” to walk a new life, and this too shows that a lowering into water is involved then a “resurrection” from the water (Romans 6:3-5; Colossians 2:12).

Here we must distinguish between what the New Testament teaches about baptism and what is generally practiced in the United Methodist Church (and most other Methodist denominations). Interestingly, John Wesley seems to have accepted immersion at first, believing in “dipping in baptism ‘all the children who were able to endure it.’”[35]  Both John and Charles Wesley traveled to the southern colony of Georgia. One writer explains:

Both John and Charles Wesley brought trouble on themselves by their conduct in Georgia. Charles insisted on triple immersion as the only proper form of infant baptism. Parents were not quite willing to have their children thus plunged three times into the water. John Wesley pursued the same method. The second magistrate of Savannah had his child baptised by another clergyman because he would not allow Wesley to treat it in this fashion.[36]

This was John Wesley’s strong view: John “insisted on baptism by immersion; he rebaptised the children of Dissenters; and he refused to bury all who had not received episcopal baptism.”[37] Wesley followed the procedures in the Prayer Book of Edward VI which specified immersion as the only “form” of baptism.[38] Apparently both Wesley and Whitfield believed in immersion rather than sprinkling, the modern Methodist practice:

John Wesley, leader of the great Wesleyan Revival of the 18th Century, in his “Explanatory notes upon the New Testament” said, “We are buried with Him – alluding to the ancient manner of baptizing by immersion.” (Comment on Romans 6:4.) George Whitfield, famous preacher and associate of John Wesley, made the following comment, “It is certain that in the words of our text, Romans 6:4, there is an allusion to the manner of baptizing which was immersion.”[39]

[John Wesley] baptized adults as they desired, but infants he would not baptize in any way but immersion, unless the parents would certify the child was unable to be immersed. We will let Bishop McTyeire speak again on this question: ‘Following a primitive but obsolete rubric, he would baptize children only by immersion nor could he be induced to depart from this mode unless the parents would certify that the child was weakly. Persons were not allowed to act as sponsors who were not communicants.’—Hist. Meth. p. 90. Charles Wesley ‘baptized children by triple immersion—plunging them three times into the water.’—Hist. Meth., p. 90.[40]

Notice again that when referring to Paul’s statement in Romans 6:3-4 (“Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? We have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life”), John Wesley wrote: John Wesley said, “’Buried with Him’ alluding to the ancient method or practice of baptizing by immersion.”[41] There is no doubt that Wesley, early in his ministry, insisted on immersing infants.

This has not continued. The United Methodist Church of today holds that “while immersion is one valid mode, so are sprinkling and pouring equally valid modes. It is the custom in our church to sprinkle water upon the person being baptized.”[42] Thus, today’s United Methodists would accept virtually any water rite as acceptable: “We believe modes of sprinkling, pouring, and immersion are valid so long as water is used and that a person is baptized ‘in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit’ as Christ commanded. (Matthew 28:19).”[43] Harman says that even if “the whole apostolic Church used immersion as its method of baptism . . . the living Church of the present would not necessarily feel bound by this mode. . . .”[44] With this perspective, there is little that can change the Methodist practice of sprinkling [aspersion] instead of the apostolic practice of immersion.

Methodist Church--baptism

Wesley also taught the importance of baptism, even clearly teaching baptismal regeneration of children.  Baptismal regeneration is a doctrine that he inherited from his Anglican background. According to Wesley’s Treatise on Baptism: “What are the benefits we receive by baptism? . . . The first of these is, the washing away the guilt of original sin, by the application of the merits of Christ’s death.”[45] This seems to be unambiguous. Wesley continued: “And this regeneration which our Church in so many places ascribes to baptism is … being ‘grafted into the body of Christ’s Church, we are made the children of God by adoption and grace.’ This is grounded on the plain words of our Lord: ‘Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.’”[46]

Today mixed messages are found within the Methodist movement. Confession’s Article VI says, “Baptism is not only a sign of profession and mark of difference whereby Christians are distinguished from others that are not baptized; but it is also a sign of regeneration or the new birth.”[47] In the Baptismal Covenant, under “Introduction to the Service,” the pastor is to say to the congregation: “Brothers and sisters in Christ: Through the Sacrament of Baptism we are initiated into Christ’s holy church. We are incorporated into God’s mighty acts of salvation and given new birth through water and the Spirit. All this is God’s gift, offered to us without price.”[48]

This seems to be a clear affirmation that the baby is actually becoming part of “Christ’s holy church” and given “new birth through water and the Spirit.” This is what the Anglican Church taught and Wesley believed. Under the heading, “Thanksgiving over the Water,” we read this prayer: “Pour out your Holy Spirit, to bless this gift of water and those who receive it, to wash away their sin and clothe them in righteousness throughout their lives, that, dying and being raised with Christ, they may share in his final victory.”[49] Notice here that through the water, the person’s sins will be washed away and they will be clothed in righteousness.

Under the heading, “Prayer for those to be baptized,” we read: “Forasmuch as all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, our Savior Christ said, ‘Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, one cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ Let us pray: ‘Almighty and everlasting God, we call upon thee for these thy servants, that they. Coming to thy holy baptism, may receive remission of their sins and be filled with the Holy Spirit. . . .’”[50] Again, we see the rather clear affirmation that the person baptized (even the tiny infant who cannot repent or believe) will be born of the Spirit, receive remission of sins, and be filled with the Spirit.

After the baptism of adults, each candidate is to receive the laying on of hands and “welcomed” by the pastor or minister, with these words: “Now it is our joy to welcome our new sisters and brothers in Christ. Through baptism you are incorporated by the Holy Spirit into God’s new creation and made to share in Christ’s royal priesthood. We are all one in Christ Jesus. With joy and thanksgiving we welcome you as members of the family of Christ.”[51] Thus, it was thought that baptism brings one into God’s family and is when one is made a new creation.

Methodist Church--baptism (2)

However, evidently many Methodist theologians and members don’t believe that the baby is actually regenerated in baptism.  One writer explains: “This article (VI) calls baptism a ‘sign’ of profession and a sign of regeneration—not regeneration itself.”[52] This shows the problems that arise when a person or church uses unscriptural language like “sign” for at first this would seem to indicate that the church does believe that the baby is indeed regenerated or born again in baptism, but, according to Harmon, this is not the case.

One more source plainly says that the United Methodist denomination now rejects the idea that an infant is regenerated or born again when it is baptized:

Methodists contend that infant baptism has spiritual value for the infant. John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, held that baptism is a means of grace, but it was symbolic. Methodists view baptism in water as symbolic and believe that it does not regenerate the baptised nor cleanse them from sin. Wesley’s own views of infant baptism shifted over time as he put more emphasis on salvation by faith and new birth by faith alone. This has fueled much debate within Methodism over the purpose of infant baptism, though most agree it should be continued. Wesley and the Methodists would agree with the Reformed or Presbyterian denominations that infant baptism is symbolic.[53]

If this is correct, we would suggest that the UMC change the wording of their official creed to reject the stated purpose of baptism. Surely many parents have wrongly concluded that their babies were being born again when water was sprinkled on their head! If the Methodist stance is not like the Lutheran, Catholic, or Orthodox view but more like the Presbyterian view, this should be clearly stated. What will happen to the person who assumes he was regenerated and his sins were washed away as a baby—and then stands before God in the Judgment to discover that he actually wasn’t saved and forgiven!

On the other hand, some Methodists would strongly denounce baptism as viewed as merely symbolic. They would say that it is more than an infant “dedication” ceremony; rather, it is the actual means of regeneration. Notice this explanation:

Infant Dedication has never had an official place in the liturgy, doctrine, or polity of the United Methodist Church. The practice and teaching of the United Methodist Church has always been in harmony with the majority view of Christianity by encouraging parents to baptize their infants. The official teaching of the United Methodist Church on baptism was first adopted in 1996 and has been readopted for the 2009-2012 quadrennia. This is printed in The Book of Resolutions of the United Methodist Church 2008, section 8013. (“By Water and the Spirit: A United Methodist Understanding of Baptism.”)

John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist movement, taught that through infant baptism a child is “cleansed of original sin, initiated into the covenant with God, admitted into the membership of the church, made an heir of the divine kingdom, and spiritually born anew.” Wesley admitted that while baptism was neither essential to nor sufficient for salvation, it was the “ordinary means” that God designated for applying the benefits of the work of Christ in our lives. . . . .

In 1964 the General Commission on Worship of the Methodist Church made note that many in the church were regarding baptism both of infants and adults, as a dedication rather than a sacrament. They pointed out that in dedication we make a gift of a life to God for God to accept, while in a sacrament God offers the gift of God’s unfailing grace for us to accept. They sought to restore the rite of baptism to its original and historic meaning as sacrament.

Infant baptism has been the historic practice of the overwhelming majority of the church throughout the Christians centuries.   Although the New Testament does not contain any explicit mandate, there is ample evidence for the baptism of infants in Scripture (Acts 2:38-41; 16:15, 33) and in early Christian doctrine and practice. Infant baptism rests firmly on the understanding that God prepares the way of faith before we request or even know that we need help (prevenient grace). The sacrament is a powerful expression of the reality that all persons come before God as no more than helpless infants, unable to do anything to save themselves, dependant on the grace of a loving God.

We respect the sincerity of parents who choose not to have their infants baptized, but we acknowledge that these views do not coincide with the Wesleyan understanding of the nature of the sacrament. The United Methodist Church does not accept either the idea that only believer’s baptism is valid or the notion that the baptism of the infant magically imparts salvation apart from active personal faith. United Methodist pastors are instructed by The Book of Discipline to explain our teaching clearly on these matters, so parents or sponsors might be free of misunderstanding.

Since baptism is primarily an act of God in the church, the sacrament is to be received by an individual only once. This position is in accord with the historic teaching of the church universal. The claim that baptism is unrepeatable rests on the steadfast faithfulness of God. God’s initiative establishes the covenant of grace in which we are incorporated in baptism.

When persons who were baptized as infants are ready to profess their Christian faith, they participate in the service of confirmation. This occasion is not an entrance into church membership, for this was accomplished through baptism. It is however a public affirmation of the grace of God in one’s baptism and the acknowledgment of one’s acceptance of that grace by faith.

To dedicate an infant is to step out of the practice, the ritual, and the teaching of the United Methodist Church. This practice brings with it confusion of our church’s understanding of the sacraments and of grace.[54]

From this, it would appear that the contemporary United Methodist Church has departed from Wesley’s own views on the efficacy of baptism. Further, some believe that the child is forgiven through baptism, while others deny this.

Notice further the issue of infant or baby baptism—traditionally called paedobaptism. The United Methodist Church follows Wesley’s lead in urging parents to baptize their infants and young children. The Confession’s Article VI says, “The baptism of young children is to be retained in the church.”[55]  The Discipline says that “the pastor of each charge shall earnestly exhort all Christian parents or guardians to present their children to the Lord in Baptism at an early age.”[56]

Harmon says “Our Church holds that the sacrament of baptism ought to be administered to young children in the name of Christ. It is a token of their initiation into the gospel way and ought to be observed by Christian parents everywhere according to Christ’s ordinance.”[57] He goes on to say, “United Methodists together with the great majority of Christians believe strongly in the baptism of infants. Through this act parents dedicate their children to Almighty God, and the church believes that God uses baptism to claim his own and put his seal upon them in a unique way.[58]  However, it must be pointed out that there is no scripture that clearly says that infants should be baptized—and many scriptures that would show the necessity of repentant faith at the time of baptism, something that would be impossible for babies and young children.

We can now see that the United Methodist Church deviates from Scriptural baptism in three ways: (1) It believes in sprinkling rather than baptism (baptism means immersion in the Greek); (2) It believes in infant or baby baptism rather than a baptism of responsible persons; (3) It teaches that baptism is effective for a person who is incapable of repentance (Acts 2:38), faith (Colossians 2:12), death to sin (Romans 6:1-5), and discipleship to Christ (Matthew 28:18-20).

  • The Lord’s supper in the United Methodist Church is defective.

Apart from the meaning of the bread and cup, the Methodist movement has not given communion its rightful place. For instance, at the beginning of the Methodist association, “the Lord’s Supper was celebrated infrequently, usually quarterly, partly because of the scarcity of ordained elders.”[59]

What about today? There is no uniform answer to this question.  The following two answers give some insight into the UMC practice:

The United Methodist Church recommends Communion be served frequently. A recent resolution recommends weekly celebration of Communion. In practice, while more churches are moving to weekly communion, most churches celebrate Communion once a month. John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist movement, recommended receiving The Lord’s Supper as often as one could.

Another answer

It depends on the Methodist Church and the member. Some churches still have communion infrequently (monthly or less) and some members still only receive communion on special occasions (such as Christmas, Easter, Pentecost and so on). However, as stated above, many Methodist Churches are increasing the frequency of receiving communion, or ‘The Lord’s Supper’. This will bring them more into line with the Anglican Church (where communion is usually weekly) as a result of the Anglican/Methodist Covenant that makes the promise that the two denominations should work more closely together in the future, possibly resulting, one day, in a united Church.[60]

Increasingly, the UMC is celebrating the Lord’s supper more often, even every week:

Some congregations celebrate communion on the first Sunday of the month and a few celebrate it only quarterly. A growing number of congregations celebrate the sacrament of Holy Communion on a weekly basis, as John Wesley himself encouraged his followers to practice. In adopting the statement on Holy Communion entitled This Holy Mystery in 2004, the General Conference of the Church urged congregations to move toward weekly celebration of communion and to use the official liturgies of the church when doing so.[61]

At least two issues could be raised. First, the early Christians broke bread (partook of the supper) each first day of the week (a study of Acts 20:7 will reveal this practice). It was a regular remembrance, done often (cf. 1 Corinthians11:17, 18, 20, 33, 34 and the purpose of their “coming together”). Second, a “scarcity of elders” is not excuse for not having the remembrance.  Christians can break bread wherever they meet and regardless of whether elders or overseers are present.

One additional point may be notice. The UMC practices what is called “open communion,” in which the bread and cup are given to anyone who wishes to partake.[62] This is in direct violation of Scripture that limits participation to people who have repented and been baptized into Christ (Acts 2:38-41 with v. 42). Further, the Lord’s supper—or the “breaking of bread”—is only for those whom the Lord has “added” to the Christian fold (Acts 2:42-47). Biblical breaking of bread is also limited to those saints who are walking in holiness and not participating in known, deliberate sin (see 1 Corinthians 5:11). And surely participation is limited to those who hold a Biblical faith in Christ Jesus (Romans 10:9-10; 1 John 4:1-6; 2 John 9-11).

  • The United Methodist Church rejects Biblical creation in favor of evolution.

One of the most devastating factors that helped to propel the Methodist churches into Biblical and theological unbelief in the nineteenth century was an acceptance of the unscriptural, irrational, and God-denying theory of evolution as formulated by Charles Darwin through his work, The Origin of the Species, in 1859. Through the evolution speculation during the past hundred and fifty years, over half of the American public has come to accept this false and evil theory that negates what Scripture says about the creation of the world.

Moses plainly stated that “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1), then he went on to state how God formed all things on the earth on six literal days (Genesis 1:1-31). As the fourth commandment states, “In six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day” (Exodus 20:11a). We further read of Christ’s pre-incarnate participation in the creation of the universe: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being” (John 1:1-3; cf. 1:10; Colossians 1:16-17; Hebrews 1:1-3).

Does Biblical creation mean anything to us? Indeed, it does. All of God’s revelation depends on His reliability in creation. The gospel of Christ itself rests on the fact that God created all things, including man (Adam and Eve), and that the first man sinned which brought the need and promise of a Savior whom we know as Jesus Christ (Romans 5:12)! Paul realized this and proclaimed that God “made the world and all things in it” and “He is Lord of heaven and earth,” thus pagan idolatry is false and must be renounced to accept the true and living God and His Son, Jesus Christ (see Acts 17:23-31). Creation is utterly important and non-optional![63]

Darwin (5)

Sadly, the Methodist Church rejects this fundamental truth of Scripture. The United Methodist website states its stand on this issue: The official statement on evolution says:

“We find that science’s descriptions of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution are not in conflict with theology.”  The Church also opposes introducing theories such as Creationism or Intelligent Design into public school curriculum.[64]

This failure to acknowledge the Biblical creation account and accept the godless theory of evolution must be a chief negative in the United Methodist Church of our day! Another official UMC statement is the following:

We recognize science as a legitimate interpretation of God’s natural world. We affirm the validity of the claims of science in describing the natural world and in determining what is scientific. We preclude science from making authoritative claims about theological issues and theology from making authoritative claims about scientific issues. We find that science’s descriptions of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution are not in conflict with theology.[65]

It is correct that true science does not conflict with Scripture; however, when many scientists reject the Biblical account of creation, they allow their unbelieving prejudices to make theological statements that are unwarranted and beyond the scope of true, unbiased science. The UMC is willing to reject the plain truths of God’s Word regarding the origin of the universe and mankind in favor of unbelieving scientists who are misusing true science. One further statement will suffice:

WHEREAS, The United Methodist Church has for many years supported the separation of church and State (¶ 164C, Book of Discipline, 2004, p. 119); Therefore, be it resolved, that the General Conference of The United Methodist Church go on record as opposing the introduction of any faith-based theories such as Creationism or Intelligent Design into the science curriculum of our public schools. ADOPTED 2008, Resolution # 5052, 2008 Book of Resolutions.[66]

It is true that “Intelligent Design” is limited for it merely states that natural processes could not have brought the world into being. It generally believes in long ages for the universe (some 13 or 14 billion years), the big bang theory, the rejection of Adam and Eve, the repudiation of a world-wide flood, and the rejection of the inspiration of Scripture. However, ID does show that evolution as it is presented today is wrong. Supporting the new resolution in the UMC, Albert C. Kuelling writes in an article entitled, “Methodism Supports Teaching Evolution,” the following telling comments:

The United Methodist Church’s General Conference 2008 quietly moved Methodism into the 21st century by passing three “evolution-friendly” petitions, putting us alongside many other denominations in recognizing that science and theology are compatible rather than contradictory.

Historically Methodism has sidestepped honest dialogue about the interface between religion and science, especially about evolution. This appears to have been done out of fear that accepting the findings of science—for instance, that evolution is an established scientific cornerstone, especially in biological fields—might incur the wrath of creationists within Methodism. The resulting effect had been an implication that The National Academies of Science and hundreds of scientists worldwide over the last century and a half are wrong.

The large voting percentage in passing the three evolution petitions is evidence that the leadership of the United Methodist Church recognizes the need to change this situation. So Methodism is joining many other denominations around the world that find no conflict between religion and science.

Many young folk have left the church because they have not been thoroughly grounded in the understanding that God uses metaphors, beautiful stories and other means to enhance understanding of religious principles. Thus, when there appears to be a conflict—albeit a needless one—between religion and science, they quietly leave. Young people typically don’t say how important this issue is to them because they don’t want to insult those they leave behind by saying their religion is out-of-touch with reality.[67]

The UMC rejects both ID and Creation as explanations for the present heaven and earth. Capitulating to unbelieving scientists, they are unwilling to consider the arguments for creation from believing professionals. The UMC wholeheartedly welcomed the special Charles Darwin day, named after the radical anti-creation and anti-God scientist whose infamy continues to this day:

The Methodist Church has welcomed a day of celebration dedicated to the achievements of scientist Charles Darwin during the year marking his 200th birthday and 150-year-old book on the theory of evolution. Methodists today praised Darwin’s ground-breaking work on common descent and evolution by natural selection, On the Origin of Species, which sparked a revolution in the biological sciences that has continued to this day.[68]

One final point here would be a response to the United Methodist resolution that accepted evolution was given by Dale R. Shunk, a United Methodist pastor from Pennsylvania who has a degree in physics as well as theology. Shunk reacts strongly to the present United Methodist statement on evolution:

I want it to be known that I am very displeased that my United Methodist denomination adopted Dr. Michael Zimmerman’s “The Clergy Letter,” which endorses evolution as compatible with the teachings of Scripture, at our General Conference in Ft. Worth, Texas, last May. The content of the Clergy Letter was added to a petition entitled “God’s Creation and the Church.” While I am in favor of celebrating God’s wonderful creation, protecting it, and seeking out alternate resources of energy, I cannot endorse Dr. Zimmerman’s letter.

In many ways my denomination has embraced the secular culture of North America, and this endorsement of evolution is one example of it. I was also very disappointed and taken aback by the arrogance of what is called “The Clergy Letter Project.” As a Bible-believing Christian, I can’t agree with the premise of his letter which states, “We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests” and that “Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth.” I am shocked that Dr. Zimmerman calls me ignorant because I hold to a different worldview (I believe in rigorous scientific research, which just so happens to uphold the biblical creation model of origins as stated in Genesis 1 and 2 for he states that biblical creationists “deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children.” )

If Dr. Zimmerman and others really want to pursue full scientific research and the truth about origins, then they should not be alienating people by calling them such things but encouraging them to pursue every path of discovery and thought. Instead he is creating a situation where people like me who have moved from a theistic evolutionist worldview to a young-earth creationist worldview over the last 30 years will become marginalized. Does not Dr. Zimmerman have his mind open to the major scientific discoveries in biology related to the complexity of the human cell, as well as to the mapping of the DNA that shows intelligent design? Plus there are other scientific fields that support a biblical model rather than an evolutionary one.

Dr. Zimmerman may have received some notoriety after his ideas were endorsed by the General Conference of the United Methodist Church in May, but I do not believe that his Clergy Letter truly represents most United Methodists who are Bible-believers. There is a growing movement of thoughtful evangelicals within the United Methodist Church who are fed up with the theological liberalism of our leaders and are speaking up. These clergy and laity are loyal to our Wesleyan doctrines and church polity and hold to our historic orthodox doctrine and scriptural holiness.

We all would do well to hold on to the changeless eternal Word of God and not put our faith in scientific principles that change constantly when a better theory arises. At the end of the day, the reality is a difference of faith and worldview.

I believe that God created the universe in six solar days as stated in Genesis 1 and supported by Exodus 20:8-11. To say that the stories of creation, Noah’s Flood, etc. are poetic (non-historic)—and therefore the only way to convey biblical truths to ancient peoples so that they would understand these accounts—is not acceptable. This would indicate that God was giving the prophets a spirit of falsehood to convey truth. The ancient biblical patriarchs would not tolerate telling stories under the pretext of being true, only to learn later that they were false. God is not a God of falsehood. He gave the prophets His anointing to tell the truth in order to convey to us His invisible attributes of power and divinity.

I say to Dr. Michael Zimmerman: you are conveying false teachings by trying to insert human and fallible extra-biblical material into the Christian faith when it is not needed. To say that the model of Darwinian evolution is an established fact is wrong. A growing number of scientists are abandoning evolution for the biblical creation model instead because it better explains the evidence in the world around us. More and more scientific discoveries are revealing how inadequate the model of evolution really is. Ultimately, the naturalism of evolution does not belong—nor is it compatible—with the plain teaching of Scripture related to creation and the origin of life on earth.[69]

This utter unbelief in the Methodist Church would surely mean that this denomination is overthrowing the entire Biblical revelation in favor of the disastrous theory of evolution! For the conscientious and Biblically-oriented member of the UMC, this one point alone should serve to “close the door” to continued membership![70]

Go to “What about the Methodist Church?” (Part 4)

 

[1] Other designations may be found in our booklet, Christians Only.

[2] See our little booklet, Christians Only?

[3] Harmon, p. 115.

[4] Ibid., p. 115.

[5] Ibid., p. 116.

[6] Ibid., pp. 117-118.

[7] See our booklet, How Were the Early Communities of Christ Organized?

[8] Harmon, Understanding the United Methodist Church, pp. 95-96.

[9] umc.org/site/c.lwL4KnN1LtH/b. 1720699/k.528D/Structure__ Organiza tion_Governance.htm #.Ua0kVSco4ec.

[10] Harmon, p. 96.

[11] Frank S. Mead, Handbook of Denominations, 11th Edition, p. 240.

[12] Ibid.

[13] umc.org/site/c.lwL4KnN1LtH/b. 1720699/k.528D/Structure__Organization _Governance.htm#.Ua0kVSco4ec.

[14]umc.org/site/c.lwL4KnN1LtH/b. 1720699/k.528D/Structure__ Organiza tion_Governance.htm#. Ua0kVSco4ec.

[15] Ron Rhodes, Ibid., pp. 266-267; cf. J. Gordon Melton, Nelson’s Guide to Denominations, p. 326.

[16] Quoted by Arthur C. Piepkorn, Profiles in Belief, Volume 2, p. 589.

[17] The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church, 1988, pp. 25-26.

[18] Ibid., p. 55.

[19] Ibid., p. 55.

[20] Ibid., p. 56.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Ibid., p. 328.

[23] Ibid., p. 329.

[24] Frank S. Mead, Handbook of Denominations, 11th Edition, p. 240.

[25] Arthur Carl Piepkorn, Profiles in Belief, Volume 2, p. 561.

[26]en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordination_of_ women_in_the_United_Methodist_ Church.

[27] Our Discipleship of Devoted Women booklet shows the array of works that God permits Christian women to engage in. However, there are also restrictions to their participation.

[28] Katie Meier, Same God Different Churches, p. 264.

[29] Harmon, p. 112.

[30] Arthur C. Piepkorn, Profiles in Belief, Volume 2, p. 584.

[31]en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordination_of _women_in_the_United_Methodist_ Church,

[32]Ibid.

[33] Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words.

[34] Wesley J. Perschbacher, The New Analytical Greek Lexicon, p. 66.

[35] Arthur Carl Piepkorn, Profiles in Belief, Volume 2, p. 538.

[36] wesley.nnu.edu/?id=101

[37] Ibid.

[38]books.google.com/books?id=_kJ4NbiS QTQC&pg=PA167&lpg=PA 167&dq =Wesley,+immersion &source=bl&ots=hvKr1u8YaP &sig=-BXa7UnG8Kqq 5tau_Br C2b-4HDg&hl=en&sa= X& ei=8vKsUdDqNKOeyw H4 s4GwBA&ved=0CFQQ 6AEwCA#v=onepage&q= Wesley %2C%20immer sion&f=false.

[39] sites.google.com/site/thefullgospel fellowship/full-immersion-baptism.

[40] reformedreader.org/ccc/grime/cat04.htm

[41]pbministries.org/Theology/J.%20Irving %20Reese/baptism_by_immersion.htm; christschurchcamden.com/ content.c fm? id=348.

[42] Harmon, p. 139.

[43] covingtonfumc.com/Baptisminthe UnitedMethodistChurch360166

[44] Harmon, p. 139.

[45] covingtonfumc.com/Baptisminthe UnitedMethodistChurch360166

[46] Ibid.

[47] Harmon, p. 50. See Article XVII, “Of Baptism,” in The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church, 1988, p. 65.

[48] The United Methodist Hymnal, p. 33.

[49] The United Methodist Hymnal, p. 42.

[50] The United Methodist Hymnal, p. 45.

[51] The United Methodist Hymnal, p. 37. (Italics are in the original.)

[52] Nolan B. Harmon, Understanding the United Methodist Church, p. 50.

[53] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_baptism#Methodists

[54] pen-del.org/pages/detail/897

[55] Nolan B. Harmon, Understanding the United Methodist Church, p. 50. See also Article XVII, “Of Baptism,” in The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church, 1988, p. 65.

[56] The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church, 1988, p. 128.

[57] Harmon, pp. 50-51.

[58] Ibid., p. 137.

[59] Ibid., p. 593.

[60]wiki.answers.com/Q/How_often_do_ Methodists_receive_communion_each_ year.

[61] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Methodist_Church

[62] Ibid.

[63] Notice Henry M. Morris III, Exploring the Evidence for Creation (Dallas: Institution for Creation Research, 2009). See also Ken Ham, The Lie, Revised Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2012); Ken Ham and Greg Hall, Already Compromised (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2011); Don DeYoung, Thousands . . . Not Billions (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2005); Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Evolution (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1999) and Refuting Compromise (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2004).

[64] umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content.aspx?c= lwL4KnN1LtH&b=5881413&ct= 3169121&notoc=1. See also: pewforum.org/Science- and-Bioethics/Religious-Groups- Views-on-Evolution.aspx

[65] umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content.aspx?c= lwL4KnN1LtH&b=5066247&ct =6715227&notoc=1. This is from The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church – 2012.

[66] umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx ?c=lwL4KnN1LtH&b=4951419&ct= 6481051&notoc=1; wiki.answers.com/Q/What_ Christian_denominations_ acknowledge_evolution.

 

[67] umportal.org/article.asp?id=3869, found in The United Methodist Reporter, July 31, 2008.

[68]ekklesia.co.uk/node/8623. See the review of this at: answersin genesis.org/articles/ 2007/02/08/churches-praise- darwin

[69] answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/09/15/ clergy-letter-fails-methodists. The Answers in Genesis organization (AnswersinGenesis.com) is a leading one that shows the fallacy of evolution and the truth of Biblical creation. Notice also the Institute for Creation Research (icr.org/) and Apologetics Press (apologeticspress.org/). Dozens of other Biblical creation sources may be found at Truediscipleship.com, under “Links.”

[70] Most denominations, even conservative ones, have compromised in regard to the Biblical teaching on creation and evolution.  The mainline churches, such as the United Methodist Church, have long ago dismissed what the Bible teaches from any serious consideration in scientific matters. See particularly Ken Ham and Greg Hall, Already Compromised (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2012).