The Wesleyan Quadrilateral

 is comprised of Scripture, tradition, reason and experience.

Well, what if tradition contradicts Scripture?

What if reason dictates that the tradition contradicts Scripture?

Before I proceed any further, I want to quote from Paragraph 102 of The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church (2020/2024):

"We share with many Christian communions a recognition of the authority of Scripture in matters of faith, the confession that our justification as sinners is by grace through faith, and the sober realization that the church is in need of continual reformation and renewal."

Why would the church be in need of continual reformation?

Answer: Because the church isn't flawless.

The church isn't flawless because its leadership isn't flawless.

Paragraph 105 of the Book of Discipline states, "But the history of Christianity includes a mixture of ignorance, misguided zeal and sin. Scripture remains the norm by which all traditions are judged."

As I understand it, that last sentence means that the validity of a tradition is determined by Scripture, not the other way around.

Well, what if a tradition is a particular way of interpreting a Bible passage? What if the actual Bible passage does not support the tradition?

I will give an example of a "traditional" Bible interpretation that conflicts with Scripture and reason.

During my study of Scripture, I encountered this written statement by a preacher:

"Paul was a leader in a delegation to a conference in Jerusalem to protest the requirement that all new converts obey the ceremonial laws of Judaism (Acts 15:1-35)."

The instant that I saw the word ceremonial in the preacher's statement, I knew that the preacher was reading into Acts 15:1-35 something that is not there.

Here is Acts 15:5 as given by the NRSV translation:

"Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, 'The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.' "

Here is the same verse as given by the Complete Jewish Bible:

"But some of those who had come to trust were from the party of the P’rushim; and they stood up and said, 'It is necessary to circumcise them and direct them to observe the Torah of Moshe.' "

The Complete Jewish Bible restores the Jewish elements in the verse that Gentile-translated versions tend to obscure.

When the Pharisees said that Gentile believers should be required to keep the Torah (Law) of Moses, the former meant the entire Torah, not just some portion of the Torah that Gentiles have labeled ceremonial.

As I see it, it is antisemitic, either intentional or unintentional, for Gentiles to change what those Pharisees meant by Torah.

So, why did the preacher I quoted change what the Pharisees meant? Why did the preacher add the word ceremonial when that word is not in Acts chapter 15?

To be blunt, the preacher was repeating a tradition, probably one taught to him by other preachers. To make matters worse, members of laity will often accept the tradition without questioning it.

Yet, what do the Apostles say in Acts 15:28-29?

From the NRSV:

"For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these essentials: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell."

As I see it, the "ceremonial" tradition repeated by that preacher was created in order to coerce Gentile believers in Jesus to following at least one "requirement" that the Apostles declared not to be a requirement.

What that "requirement" might be is a topic for another post. 

However, the continued existence of the "ceremonial" tradition demonstrates that the Book of Discipline is correct in saying "the history of Christianity includes a mixture of ignorance, misguided zeal and sin."

Thankfully, Paragraph 217 of the Book of Discipline contains an antidote to the "ceremonial" tradition. That paragraph lists the vows that one makes when one initially joins a United Methodist congregation.

The 6th vow is "To faithfully participate in its ministries by their prayers, their presence, their gifts, their service and their witness."

The 6th vow does not require a church member to conform to any alleged non-ceremonial law that an ordained person might incorrectly try to impose on church members.

By the way, I have a question related to the so-called "ceremonial law" that the aforementioned preacher referred to.

Is the Sabbath Commandment in Exodus 20:10 ceremonial law?

That verse reads, "But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work." (NIV)

The seventh day is Saturday. If Exodus 20:10 is not ceremonial law, then why are Gentiles allowed to disobey it?* No, the New Testament does not say that the Sabbath was changed from Saturday to Sunday.

[*Seventh-Day Adventists insist that Gentiles are not allowed to disobey Exodus 20:10.]

Angry Birds

 are which of the following:

A) Characters in a video game

B) Characters in an animated movie

C) Characters in the United Methodist denomination

I would like to say that "C" is not a correct answer, but I have seen that it is.

When I joined the United Methodist denomination in 2024, I knew that United Methodists were not any more righteous than believers in Jesus outside the UMC. 

However, I had hoped I wouldn't encounter people who wanted to sling-shot their way into a fight.

Yet, I have.

To explain what I mean, consider this famous photograph that was taken at Little Rock’s Central High School on Sept. 4, 1957.

In this photo, 15-year-old white student Hazel Bryan is yelling at 15-year-old black student Elizabeth Eckford as the latter tries to enter Little Rock, Arkansas' Central High School.

The UK's The Telegraph newspaper describes the circumstances of this photo:

"One girl, Hazel Bryan, looked livid, her face poisoned with hate. As Benjamin Fine of The New York Times later described her, she was “screaming, just hysterical, just like one of these Elvis Presley hysterical deals, where these kids are fainting with hysteria”. Her eyes narrowed, her brow furrowed, her teeth clenched, Hazel shouted: “Go home, nigger! Go back to A-”. Click. “-frica!” Will Counts, a photographer for the Arkansas Democrat, had his picture."

Now, imagine this same scene being played out today, except that Elizabeth Eckford has been replaced with a politician or a political appointee.

Does harassing a person in public become Christ-like behavior if the one being harassed isn't a minority?

Does harassing a person in public become Christ-like behavior if the one being harassed is supporting a government action that one disapproves of?

I see nothing ungodly in peaceful political protests. However, I cannot support protests that are nothing but acts of harassment.

Should believers in Messiah Jesus disrupt the peace in a restaurant where a politician or a political appointee is having a meal with the latter's family?

Should believers in Messiah Jesus stand outside the home of a politician or a political appointee and shout and make other noises so as to disturb the peace of that person and that person's spouse and children?

Such harassment of politicians and political appointees has taken place in the USA. Is that something that United Methodists should condone or participate in?

If preachers only knew

 when they should stop preaching, then the world would be better off.

After all, not all preachers are of the same caliber as John Wesley.

Sure, the UMC has a mandatory retirement age for Elders, but what if an Elder loses effectiveness before reaching retirement age?

Also, what about denominations and independent congregations that don't have a mandatory retirement age?

As a public service, here are 10 signs that is time for a preacher to leave the pulpit.

01. On Pastor Appreciation Day, the congregation gives you a trip to the Orient, but it’s for one way only.

02. Your church's leaders forget to include your salary in next year’s church budget.

03. The last time you preached a funeral, people mistook you for the deceased.

04. The ushers hand out NoDoz tablets before you begin your sermons.

05. The church bulletins have crossword puzzles where sermon notes are supposed to go.

06. The local ministers association notifies you that your lifetime membership has expired.

07. Doctors prescribe recordings of your sermons as a cure for insomnia.

08. Your relatives tell their friends that you work for the Mafia because they are too embarrassed to say what you really do.

09. The other members of your household attends another church because nobody there knows who you are.

10. Rodney Dangerfield gets more respect than you do.

It's just emotion

 that's taken me over, or so sang the Bee Gees.

The Bee Gees

It's just emotion that takes over group conversations whenever a hot topic is being discussed.

That is why I would rather write about stuff than verbally present my thoughts to an audience. I don't like it when people respond to me by being loud, aggressive and highly emotional.

I have to watch myself or I will become loud and emotional, too. By writing my thoughts down, I am able to review them and revise them after I calm down.

Sometimes, when I am in a group, I prefer not to say anything at all, especially when I already know that I am outnumbered when comes to the majority opinion about a subject. 

The last time that I dared to speak up, others were using their eyes to throw daggers at me, and that happened during a meeting of United Methodists.

No, I had not expressed a nefarious belief. Instead, I mentioned the proverbial "elephant in the living room" that, in my opinion, was being danced around by the group.

Granted, I should have worded my initial statement in a different way. Yet, I suspect that the outcome would have been the same.

Now that I have become a UMC Certified (at present time) Lay Servant, I strive to be much more cautious with what I say and how I say it.

To me, keeping the peace is more important than quibbling about things that I cannot change.

The first impression

that a church visitor gets of a congregation is something that occurs before the visitor hears a sermon in that congregation.

I heard that lesson while attending an in-person UMC laity course.

That lesson was true for me in June of 2024 when I visited two UMC congregations. I was not a UMC member at the time.

The first congregation that I visited is more than 100 years old and has a "traditional" church building that the congregation owns. 

My first impression of that particular congregation wasn't great, but something said during the service piqued my interest in the UMC denomination.

The pastor mentioned that one of its members was a Certified Lay Servant who was acting as a guest speaker for another UMC congregation.

I was surprised to learn that the UMC trains its lay-members to serve the broad UMC community. That bit of news prompted me to go online to learn more about the UMC.

Later that month, I learned that a UMC church plant was in my community. So, I decided to visit that congregation.

Later that day, I turned my first impression of that second congregation into a song:

A Church With No Name

Based on the song A Horse With No Name by the 1970s band America.

On my contentious journey

I sought new direction for my life.

The troubles that did upset me

Felt like the cutting of a knife.

The first thing I saw was an open door.

Then a greeter showed me around.

I went to a class taught by Ronald Foore.

I wasn't sure what I had found.

I went to worship with a church with no name.

It felt good to be in a group that is new.

No one there will make you feel shame

'Cause the people there all be sinners like you.

La, laaa, la-la la-la la, la-la la, laaa, laaa.

La, laaa, la-la la-la la, la-la la, laaa, laaa.

I had a hunch it would be a lively bunch,

Both the women and the men.

As a first-time guest I was quite impressed

At how easy that I could fit in.

We got to talking about climate change

And about windows put into a cow.

If you're thinking that last subject is strange,

Then you should hear what we talk about now.

You see I went to worship with a church with no name.

It felt good to be in a group that is new.

No one there will make you feel shame

'Cause the people there all be sinners like you.

I returned to that second congregation the following Sunday.

In July of 2024, that congregation gained the name The Tapestry.

The congregation gained official legal status later in 2024, which is when it gained its first official members.

I am one of the first official members.

Defending LGBTQ Christians

is a difficult task to perform when critics of the LGBTQ community insist on using theological double standards.

I challenge those double standards in my online commentary LGBTQ+ Christians are real.

As I see it, it is a waste of time to get into a debate with LGBTQ critics who are closed to receiving data that conflicts with what they believe. Sometimes, it is better to walk away from critics and rely on the Holy Spirit to soften their hearts.

Believe it or not, the Holy Spirit is fully capable of doing such a thing. I know so because the Holy Spirit did such a thing with me.

In my case, the Good Lord delivered me,

"From the cowardice that dares not face new truth,

from the laziness that is contented with half truth,

from the arrogance that thinks it knows all truth."*

I used to misunderstand the LGBTQ community, but later I realized that I could be missing something. 

Finally, a thought occurred to me: 

Who would choose a sexual orientation that has historically resulted in one being on the receiving end of all kinds of verbal and physical abuse? As one cartoon dog says, "It just don't add up!"

That one thought prompted me to research more about the LGBTQ community. One result of that research is that I am now a United Methodist. 

I cannot in good conscience be a member of a church that has one "gospel" for people inside the LGBTQ community and another "gospel" for people outside the LGBTQ community.

No, the United Methodist Church is not perfect. I keep encountering United Methodists who express beliefs that I disagree with. However, I keep in mind something that John Wesley says in his Sermon 39: "Though we cannot think alike, may we not love alike?"

So, as a UMC Certified Lay Servant, I share a Gospel that is the same for all people regardless of their sexual orientation or sexual identity.

If people outside the LGBTQ community criticize me for doing so, then so be it.

I would rather be criticized for who I include than be complimented for who I exclude.

[*Prayer from Kenya, Page 597, The United Methodist Hymnal]

George Orwell's novel "Animal Farm"

 is supposed to be a fictional story, but it could be a true story in UMC congregations if UMC members are not cautious.

The George Orwell novel Animal Farm ends with the animals becoming what they are opposed to at the beginning of the novel.

During the brief time that I have been a member of the UMC, I have witnessed United Methodists becoming what they were opposed to, also.

For example, I have heard people say that they joined the UMC because their political beliefs made them unwelcome in another church.

That is another reason why I joined the UMC. My previous church was openly slanted toward certain political beliefs.

Thus, I cringe when I hear politics being talked about while I attend UMC events.

United Methodists might claim that their congregations are welcoming, but is that true if the congregations become enclaves for people with one particular set of political beliefs?

If a non-UMC congregation is unwelcoming because it is a "political red" congregation, then a UMC congregation is equally unwelcoming if it is a "political blue" congregation.

UMC congregations should be safe for people of all political beliefs. I am waiting to see if that will ever be the case.

The Gospel is politically neutral

 but United Methodists are not. They demonstrate that the Greek philosopher was correct when he said, "Man by nature is a political animal."

As a UMC Certified Lay Servant, I am expected to be some kind of a leader in the UMC. Yet, I do not know how I can serve the general public in that position if I become associated with any kind of politics.

One reason why I joined the UMC was so that my church affiliation would not hinder my ability to talk to members of the LGBTQ community.

As I see it, me embracing political causes as a United Methodist would hinder my ability to talk to members of the general public who might not agree with the UMC General Conference's political statements.

Those statements are in the Social Principles section of the UMC Book of Discipline.

Granted, those Social Principles are not UMC law, nor are the statements in the UMC Book of Resolutions.