On Sunday, May 9, a group of concerned lay persons in the North Georgia Conference of the United Methodist Church (UMC) released an open letter to their liberal Bishop, Sue Haupert-Johnson. The group calls itself United Methodist Laity for Openness and Transparency.
Briefly setting some context is in order. With nearly 350,000 members, this bishop’s North Georgia Area is numerically the largest annual UMC conference in America. It includes more United Methodists than the geographically huge U.S. Western Jurisdiction. In 2018, an official survey of the clergy and lay members present at that year’s North Georgia Annual Conference session (conducted at a time some believe made the results skew more liberal) found 59 percent supporting the denomination’s biblical standard of viewing homosexual practice as “incompatible with Christian teaching.” Twenty-Five percent said that they would leave the denomination if this stance was ever officially changed.
A bishop since 2016, Sue Haupert-Johnson has done several things that have caused a stir in this part of the UMC. As North Georgia’s bishop, she joined the national leadership team of the aggressively liberal UMC Next caucus group. This degree of “partisanship” is very unusual for active bishops, who are supposed to be the bishops for everybody in their conferences. She and her deputies are now heavily promoting a liberal vision for the annual conference. There has been much outrage over the bishop’s apparently punitive mistreatment of the conference’s largest congregation.
UMAction reached out directly to Bishop Haupert-Johnson several days ago to give her a chance to tell her side of the story of the situation in the UMC’s North Georgia Conference, and will post more when we receive her response.
UM Voices is a forum for different voices within the United Methodist Church on pressing issues of denominational and/or social concern. UM Voices contributors represent only themselves and not IRD/UMAction.
United Methodist Laity for Openness and Transparency
An Open Letter to Bishop Sue Haupert-Johnson
As the laity of the North Georgia Conference of the United Methodist Church (NGUMC), we have received your message of “Come to the Table.” In that spirit, we are extending an invitation to you to please come to the table with your laity. We are seeking an open forum to ask our bishop some pressing questions that have yet to be answered.
The laity of the NGUMC are frustrated that, for the most part, our clergy have not been communicating with us on vital issues. People of the Light should not be left in darkness. The longer these questions go unaddressed, the more confusion and frustration grows among the laity.
We are seeking answers, openness and transparency from our leadership. Recent events, and the public airing of them, have shaken our confidence. So, we are turning to you for help.
Our questions for you include:
• Will you agree to meet with the laity to answer questions directly, rather than selectively screened questions on Zoom conferences?
• Why are so many clergy unwilling to hold open discussions with laity about the future of the UMC? Do they have reasons to fear retribution?
• Why have pastors been verbally reprimanded for hosting Wesleyan Covenant Association events in their churches?
• Why are open discussions not allowed to occur in our churches, where all perspectives may be voiced, without the clergy hosting these meetings being fearful of retribution during the appointment process? This is provided for in the Protocol, which you publicly endorsed. Why are traditionalists force to host events in civic centers and other places due to those concerns?
• The 2019 General Conference was called by the Council of Bishops to resolve our long-running dispute regarding human sexuality once and for all. There were widespread calls to prayer by all parties, including the Council of Bishops, for many weeks and months in advance of that event. Have you considered the possibility that the 2019 result, affirming the UMC traditional stance on marriage, was an answer to those prayers? And if not, why not?
• In your recent webinar, “Reclaiming the Welcoming Table,” you made a passionate case for the One Church Plan, which was enthusiastically and effectively presented at General Conference in 2019 – and rejected, as it was in 2016. Was anything you said different than what had been previously proposed? Why are you advocating for a policy that our denomination has consistently voted down?
• The “Reclaiming the Welcoming Table” document states: “Clergy have always had discretion about which couples they will agree to marry, and no clergy will be asked to do anything against their conscience.” Does this mean your new policy is to support any clergy who, following their conscience, perform a same-sex ceremony?
• If all viewpoints are welcome at the table, why was there not a single voice expressed in your webinar opposing the new direction you see for the UMC? You stated your cabinet unanimously shared your new vision for the UMC. Where are the traditional voices in your cabinet?
• In your webinar, you made mention that the fastest growing churches in the U.S. are those that are the most diverse, which is certainly the case in areas of race, national origin and age. Can you identify a single one of those fastest-growing churches that performs same-sex weddings or ordains LGBTQ+ persons?
• You have said on multiple occasions that you are supporting full-inclusion for LGBTQ+ persons, meaning not just membership – but ordination. In that regard, is it correct to assume that ordination would not be limited to same-sex monogamous couples but to all LGBTQ+ persons?
• During your recent webinar, you refer to the pastors and laity who support the long-established UMC doctrine and polity as a “splinter group.” What makes you believe the majority of 300,000 UMC members in North Georgia do not hold traditional views? Have you commissioned surveys of the membership to find out?
• How can we, as UMC laity, trust that we are being properly informed when the news of Mt. Bethel’s disaffiliation – a national news story, appearing in various religious and secular publications – does not appear anywhere on our conference website (ngumc.org)? Is that not important news for our laity? Yet, your response to the (unreported) news was given prominent display. If we are not being notified by our clergy or the conference office, how are we supposed to be informed?
• Your written response to Mt. Bethel’s decision included a reference to the Book of Discipline’s guidelines on making appointments, a consultation process including the bishop, district superintendent, pastor and the Staff Parish Relations Committee (SPRC). Your written response made no mention of consulting the pastor or staff-parish committee during an “extensive period of discernment.” Dr. Ray and the SPRC at Mt. Bethel have stated publicly no such consultation occurred before they were informed of the pastoral change. Could you provide some explanation to clear up the confusion?
• Bishop, in 2017 you released a video detailing what “consultation” means in the context of the appointment process. Why was this process not followed regarding Mt. Bethel and Dr. Jody Ray? https://bit.ly/3xRWhcT
• Appointment changes without consultation, similar to Mt. Bethel, recently occurred in New Jersey and California. Are these events part of a pattern within the Council of Bishops to marginalize traditional pastors and churches?
• Please explain how you can fulfill your vow before God to “support and maintain” the doctrine and discipline of the church established by General Conference while at the same time working hard to change it?
• Paragraph 2553, known as the “Taylor Exit Plan,” was passed at the 2019 General Conference. It releases the Trust Clause and provides progressive and traditional churches an avenue to exit the denomination. Annual Conferences across the U.S., including our neighbors in the South Georgia Annual Conference – without a traditional bishop – have been allowing this provision, which many churches have used to exit. Why has the North Georgia Annual Conference refused for two years to allow this provision to be implemented?
• Are you willing to post the formula used to calculate the cost to disaffiliate so that churches contemplating this are not targeted or fearful of reprisal?
Comment by David on May 18, 2021 at 11:01 am
Do people actually read printed versions of newspapers anymore?
Comment by Gary Bebop on May 18, 2021 at 12:05 pm
The hegemons not only read newspapers, they intend to dominate the conversation through legacy media. Bishops typically manifest institutional power through unanswerable communiques, controlling the message all the way down. That’s why the North Georgia laity rebuke has excited such interest. It breaks through the ruling paradigm to express itself. Most United Methodists behave like terrified sheep.
Comment by Sort of disturbed on May 18, 2021 at 12:08 pm
The open letter is a very good one, raising a lot of issues of significance.
However, it greatly bothers me that something like this ended up as a paid ad in the major newspaper in the state of Georgia. If I am someone with questions about Christianity and I read this in the AJC it would be a definite turn off. It makes the conference seem like a secular social organization having a food fight over trivia than an organization interested in changing hearts and minds. And don’t think for a minute that organizations that hate the Church will ignore it. I really wish the group that ran the ad had shown better judgement and not put this in the secular news world.
While that is a shot at the laity group that bought the ad, it is much more a condemnation of the conference hierarchy. Is it really that hard for a leftist bishop to speak their beliefs to people who openly disagree with them? Is this what passes for unity in the UMC these days?
In other conferences and jurisdictions the left side of the church can get all the publicity it wants, all they have to do is have a gay or trans wedding in a church and tell the local newspaper/media about it. In this annual conference is the bishop’s ego is too big for her to discuss with her flock the questions that bother them? Or she is so fearful of a negative response she is unwilling to open herself up to hard questions or criticism? Could it actually be that she does not care about those who disagree with her, or that they are not worth of her attention?
Is there anyone left in this conference’s hierarchy with the wisdom to tell this bishop they need to open some dialogue on this? Or maybe she doesn’t care that the ‘dirty laundry’ of the conference is hung out there for all to see? It is an ugly situation, and I believe God is not happy about it either.
Comment by Dan W on May 18, 2021 at 12:53 pm
UM Voices, thank you for posting this. These are great questions, I can hardly wait for the answers. Maybe we’ll hear back before the 20?? General Conference?!
Comment by David S. on May 18, 2021 at 1:10 pm
As a very nominal member of the PC(USA), I can attest from personal experience, as I would presume our brethren in other mainline denominations, notably TEC and possibly ELCA, that the so-called, progressive church bureaucrats will only respond if they are constitutionally mandated to do so with no other choice. I suspect that Bishop Haupert-Johnson will exert her greatest amount of energy to ignore this and will only respond until an overwhelming majority of the Conference membership gives her no other choice.
It has been long said that the regional and national denominational organizations within the mainline denominations, particularly TEC, PC(USA), and UMC, because of trust clauses are nothing more that real estate investment trusts. I have come to the conclusion that these organizations are increasingly morphing in PACs instead with little disregard for the membership, assuming that everyone agrees with the leadership nearly 100 percent, since you can always leave. Of course, it is not always that simple for individual families.
Lastly, I am continually reminded of the passage, which says, “by their fruits you shall know them.” These bishops, clerks, moderators, presidents, etc., who choose to take hyper-partisan stances against dissent, increasingly reveal themselves to be nothing more than modern-day Pharisees. Those, who may hold to a more liberal stance, yet seek to find a truly Christian-way are not in that camp, and should be treated as Christian brethren. Those leftist Pharisees need to be treated as heretics.
Comment by Bill on May 18, 2021 at 5:10 pm
When fully deciphering bishop Sue Haupert-Johnson’s vision documents for the United Methodist Church, “Love Is Making Room- Reclaiming The Welcoming Table” and “The Welcoming Table Q&A”, an updated progressive theology in love wrappings emerges, coupled with a bashing of traditional Methodists.
I. AN UPDATED PROGRESSIVE THEOLOGY IN LOVE WRAPPINGS:
A. ”Love Is Making Room” for unrepentant sexual immorality and be United Methodist.
B. “Love Is Making Room” for clergy to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies in the church sanctuaries and be United Methodist.
C. “Love Is Making Room” for licensing and ordination candidates involved in unrepentant sexual immorality to be United Methodist.
D. “Love Is Making Room for licensed and ordained clergy involved in unrepentant sexual immorality to be United Methodist.
E. “Love is Making Room” for Scriptural Authority to be that of people, not of God, to be United Methodist.
F. “Love is Making Room” for a new evangelism, minus repentance, that speaks contextually to what people desire to hear in order for them to feel loved and valued to be United Methodist.
II. A BASHING OF TRADITIONAL METHODISTS:
A. At “The Welcoming Table Q&A” document introduction —- the bishop says, “we have received dozens of comments and questions on the “Welcoming Table” vision from North Georgia United Methodists. The vision guide is intended as the start of a conversation”.
However, the opening question of this document immediately shifts to a blaming theme, “there are splinter groups reaching out to United Methodist churches encouraging them to split away from the church”.These splinter groups are sharing misinformation and it is time for the bishop and cabinet to speak into this.”
“Splinter groups” is code for traditional Methodists. “Split away” is code for talking about the purpose of the Protocol – separation. “Misinformation” is code regarding the formation of the Global Methodist Church. NOTE — the bishop has endorsed the Protocol Of Reconciliation And Grace Through Separation but doesn’t want it discussed in the North GA Conference.
B. In Jan, 2020 the bishop introduced this tactic of smearing and marginalizing traditional Methodists with relation to the Protocol by stating, “the Protocol offers a path to separate for THOSE whose convictions do not allow them to continue to be United Methodists.
C. In other words, traditional Methodists do not have sufficient convictions to be real Methodists — but, instead, are some sort of fringe, trouble making, splinter group who do not deserve a seat at the “Welcoming Table” for “conversation.”
Comment by Bill on May 18, 2021 at 5:34 pm
When fully deciphering bishop Sue Haupert-Johnson’s vision documents for the United Methodist Church, “Love Is Making Room- Reclaiming The Welcoming Table” and “The Welcoming Table Q&A”, an updated progressive theology in love wrappings emerges, coupled with a bashing of traditional Methodists.
I. AN UPDATED PROGRESSIVE THEOLOGY IN LOVE WRAPPINGS:
A. ”Love Is Making Room” for unrepentant sexual immorality and be United Methodist.
B. “Love Is Making Room” for clergy to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies in the church sanctuaries and be United Methodist.
C. “Love Is Making Room” for licensing and ordination candidates involved in unrepentant sexual immorality and be United Methodist.
D. “Love Is Making Room for licensed and ordained clergy involved in unrepentant sexual immorality and be United Methodist.
E. “Love is Making Room” for Scriptural Authority to be that of people, not of God, and be United Methodist.
F. “Love is Making Room” for a new evangelism, minus repentance, that speaks contextually to what people desire to hear in order for them to feel loved and valued and be United Methodist.
II. A BASHING OF TRADITIONAL METHODISTS:
A. At “The Welcoming Table Q&A” document introduction —- the bishop says, “we have received dozens of comments and questions on the “Welcoming Table” vision from North Georgia United Methodists. The vision guide is intended as the start of a conversation”.
However, the opening question of this document immediately shifts to a blaming theme, “there are splinter groups reaching out to United Methodist churches encouraging them to split away from the church”.These splinter groups are sharing misinformation and it is time for the bishop and cabinet to speak into this.”
“Splinter groups” is code for traditional Methodists. “Split away” is code for talking about the purpose of the Protocol – separation. “Misinformation” is code regarding the formation of the Global Methodist Church. NOTE — the bishop has endorsed the Protocol Of Reconciliation And Grace Through Separation but doesn’t want it discussed in the North GA Conference.
Comment by Bill on May 18, 2021 at 5:41 pm
BISHOP SUE HAUPERT-JOHNSON,
You know very well that two new primary Methodist expressions are emerging. And, those developing these two new denominations are all currently United Methodists. They are ALL currently paying the bills. You have boasted about your ability to work with progressives, traditionalists, and centrists. In fact, you work FOR progressives, traditionalists, and centrists in the present UMC — employed by the General Conference and the Southeast Jurisdiction, all of which are made up of United Methodist progressives, traditionalists, and centrists.
The progressive vision of the church, your “Welcome Table” post-separation UMC, is on the one side, and the traditionalists vision of the church, the Global Methodist Church, is on the other. These represent the two primary irreconcilable perspectives resulting in our schism. As you well know, this resulted in the PROTOCOL FOR SEPARATION AND GRACE THROUGH SEPARATION, that you’ve endorsed, negotiated by leading United Methodist progressives, traditionalists, and centrists — with emphasis, all were United Methodists.
WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO INVITE ALL PERSPECTIVES TO YOUR WELCOMING TABLE FOR SOME REAL, HONEST, AND OPEN CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THE CHURCH? WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO INSTRUCT YOUR MINISTERS TO INITIATE REAL, HONEST, AND OPEN CONVERSATIONS WITH THEIR CONGREGATIONS ON THE FUTURE OF THE CHURCH?
Most important, when are you going to place your vision of the church beside the Global Methodist Church vision so that the people called Methodists can discern the choices coming down the road?
Bill Anthony
Comment by Timothy on May 18, 2021 at 5:49 pm
David S. Excellent post. This sad story mirrors the PCUSA decline. Arrogant, condescending bureaucrats poisoned by power, peer pressure and partisan political motives. A paid ad in the local paper is a smart, bold move; it will get picked up on the paper’s website, get posted on people’s twitter, facebook, etc.
Comment by Pat on May 18, 2021 at 7:31 pm
Any Methodist Bishop or anyone in a leadership role in the UMC that advocates in favor of gay marriage or gay ordination is a false prophet used by satan to continue the destruction of the Methodist church started by John Wesley. They no longer care what the Bible says about marriage or any moral behavior, distorting the Holy Scriptures to do satan’s bidding. The Methodist church as founded by John Wesley no longer exists. The only way to stop the madness is for Bible believing Methodists to remove themselves from those refusing to follow all scripture as given to us by God, our creator. The continued delay to approve any separation is their attempt to remove any and all traditional pastors and leaders from any churches to control the votes to leave their local conference, consolidating their power, control and the money. Time to call their action what it is and nothing more.
Comment by John67 on May 18, 2021 at 10:30 pm
“In her pastoral letter (to Mt. Bethel), Haupert-Johnson said Ray’s sermon “cast this as a ‘hostile takeover’ by an evil, ungodly woman bishop,” http://eastcobbnews.com/breaking-news-mt-bethel-to-leave-united-methodist-church/
Comment by Timothy on May 19, 2021 at 1:45 am
John67; good find–the link to the Cobb news site was interesting, as were the ‘letters to the editor’. It’s good to see local folks commenting on Church politics, even though Church bureaucrats piously regard us as mere pew sitting ‘rabble.’ Rabble, by the way, was used in many Bible translations, and even Shakespeare made reference to the rabble.
Comment by John67 on May 19, 2021 at 8:03 am
Timothy, It’s good that the GMC proposes term limits on bishops.
Besides Mt. Bethel, the pastor at Hillside (Woodstock) was replaced several years ago.
The pastor had signed the 2011 Open Letter to the Council of Bishops which called on the bishops to enforce the BOD.
Bishop Sue held a Town Hall at Hillside last year and took a victory lap.
Comment by John67 on May 19, 2021 at 8:11 am
Timothy,
It’s good that the GMC plans term limits for bishops.
Beside Mt. Bethel, the pastor at Hillside UMC (Woodstock) was replaced several years ago. He had signed the 2011 Open Letter to the Council of Bishops requesting they enforce the BOD.
Last year Bishop Sue held a Town Hall at Hillside and took a victory lap.
(Editor: My comment isn’t printing. Why is that? Edit if you see fit, but even AJC is printing paid ads).
Comment by John67 on May 19, 2021 at 8:13 am
My apologies to the editor, There was a time delay in printing my first comment above.
Mea culpa. John67
Comment by Bill on May 19, 2021 at 5:16 pm
Editor,
My apologies for my lengthy post being posted twice.
Bill
Comment by Jeff on May 19, 2021 at 11:25 pm
Bill: I predict that Bp. Haupert Hyphen Johnson will realize her “Lust is Making Room” vision in a dramatic way — by making bunches of room in the pews of her progressive congregations, and also clearing out a lot of space in those collection plates (and therefore apportionments). 🙂
John67: “In her pastoral letter (to Mt. Bethel), Haupert-Johnson said Ray’s sermon “cast this as a ‘hostile takeover’ by an evil, ungodly woman bishop,” Whatever her flaws, it’s refreshing to see Bp. H-hyphen-J testify to her moment of lucid self-awareness!
Comment by John Smith on May 20, 2021 at 6:47 am
This ” It makes the conference seem like a secular social organization…” seems to be the actual goal of the liberal/progressive wing.
At the end of the day, however, this shows the complete failure of UMC ecclesiology. There is no accountability for the Bishops and right now it seems like the “new” GMC is happily following along in its footsteps. You can write up any doctrinal/theological standards you want but if you let the elders teach as they want and do as they want you will change nothing except the name.
Comment by John Smith on May 20, 2021 at 6:54 am
David S: I firmly believe that as long as the Bishops and bureaucracy continue to get affirmation from the world they will continue to ignore the laity that they cannot convert to their views. The laity have no other weapons but their wallets and their feet. Unfortunately the UMC was once large, popular, well thought of and many gave fortunes to it. The UMC has been living on that capital for a long time. Within a couple decades most of that will be gone but those who bankrupted the UMC, theologically, morally and financially will be long gone.
Comment by Bill on May 20, 2021 at 2:40 pm
Jeff,
Thanks. I watched Jody Ray’s April 11 sermon. He said no such thing about this bishop. That is a false accusation on her part. In fact, he offered a public statement of forgiveness to those doing this to him.
A brief as possible timeline of the Mt Bethel situation:
1. The week prior to notifying Jody Ray of his transfer, the bishop had issued to her clergy the infamous “LOVE IS MAKING ROOM” document, an apostate restatement of the 2019 “One Church Plan” wrapped in a love narrative. This thing is beyond unreal. Traditional ministers are outraged. It’s at the North Georgia Conference website.
2. April 5 — Jody Ray notified of his transfer OUT OF THE PULPIT of the largest and growing church in the conference to some yet to be named conference staff position. It was actually an ultimatum— take the job, take a leave of absence, or surrender his credentials (resign). No consultation preceded this – zero.
3. April 6 — Mt Bethel SPRC notified of this change — again, no consultation, just notification.
4. April 11 — Jody Ray preached a powerful Gospel sermon. At the end, he announced to his congregation of what was happening and that he had declined this new position due to the way it was done — this to a standing ovation. He even said that things would likely be at a much different point had the bishop followed the usual and customary consultation protocol , but she did not. He said that he did not know the mind of the bishop, yet forgave her and those involved in this. He DID NOT say one negative thing about the bishop, not one. He concluded by say, to a standing ovation, that he “would not bow and kiss the ring of a progressive Methodist church”.
April 11 — The SPRC chairwoman followed Jody Ray that Sunday and announced there had been no consultation, that the announcement caught her committee by complete surprise. She then stated that Mt Bethel was “not in a position to receive a new senior pastor at this time”. A later 5,000 signed petition from the Mt Bethel congregation was sent to the bishop respectfully requesting that she reverse her decision — of which she has said she will not relent, adamantly per the SPRC chairwoman.
April 18 — There were some very strange things that happened on this, the Announcement Sunday, with relation to the pastor who was being assigned to Mt Bethel to replace Jody Ray. First, he was going to Mt Bethel immediately because of an “impending crisis” there. That was changed to May 2. It was changed again to July 1, the usual transfer Sunday. This pastor’s church website went through several revisions in announcing his leaving — very strange. He is still listed on the North GA Conference website as the new senior pastor at Mt Bethel, with his replacement also still listed – most strange.
April 26 — Mt Bethel announced that it was initiating disaffiliation from the UMC, that Jody Ray had surrendered his credentials as an ordained elder in the UMC, and that Mt Bethel had hired him as CEO and Lead Preacher.
April 27. Mt Bethel announced that it had filed formal complaints against the bishop and the district superintendent.
This thing is far from over. Mt Bethel will be using the 2019 revised disaffiliation procedure, as approved by the Judicial Council, to disaffiliate. Then, there’s the two formal complaints. Bishop Haupert-Johnson is an attorney. She will probably need all her attorney skills in that Mt Bethel will likely not be an easy settlement for the North Ga Conference on both the disaffiliation proceedings and adjudicating the complaints.
Mt Bethel Church (no longer identifying as United Methodist) is maintaining an update on its website to keep folks posted as this thing unfolds.
Comment by John Smith on May 21, 2021 at 8:12 am
John 67: What good does a 15 year limit do? What is the average length of time in office now? It seems to me it will disincentivize taking action as “They only have x years left and it will take so much time to do anything and to what purpose, it’ll just be heartbreak to no purpose”. Term limits do not address the real problem of the bishops.
Comment by George on May 25, 2021 at 7:40 am
My reply to “greatly disturbed”. I’m sure that when Martin Luther nailed his ninety-five Thesis to the church door, the church leaders probably shared your same concerns.
I say that when airing things out, it’s best done out in the open for EVERYONE to see.
We have hidden and covered up our true nature for far too long. Light displaces darkness.
Comment by Anthony on May 29, 2021 at 4:56 pm
Haubert-Johnson has appointed a new pastor-in-charge at Mt Bethel, although Mt Bethel has initiated disaffiliation from the UMC. This new designated pastor is meeting with “small groups” of Mt Bethel members in another nearby UMC telling them of his “vision” for Mt Bethel, although Mt Bethel is planning to leave the denomination. Is this beyond unreal or not? But the bombshell this “new pastor” dropped at one of these meeting — from the WCA article: “He reportedly told a small gathering of Mt. Bethel members that he believes Bishop Haupert-Johnson will move to close the church and evict its lay leadership and staff if they do not relent and receive him as their senior pastor by July 1.”
SO, THIS BISHOP WILL CLOSE THIS CHURCH AND EVICT THE STAFF AND LAY LEADERSHIP if the church does not accept him as their pastor-in-charge by July 1. This is the largest church in the North GA Conference with over 300 on staff. So, the bishop will swoop in and just FIRE these people, close this church, and lock out its 5,000+ members?
I can find no more words to type here.
Comment by John67 on June 3, 2021 at 10:59 am
Last week there was an interview w/Bishop Sue and Tom Jackson.
In it, she said that some people told her it would be dangerous for her to come to Mt. Bethel to explain her decisions. Think about that. A bishop is afraid to speak to one of her own churches? Sending her as a sheep among wolves? No, thank you.
Does she not know that sometimes the pastorate is a warrior profession. “We are not contending with flesh and blood but with the powers and principalities of this present darkness.”
Instead she appeals to the weak woman’s defense: “I’m a woman and must be protected from any unpleasantness.” This is a problem with many women in the pastorate: they avoid conflict and confrontation. Much of the flouting of the Book of Discipline by bishops (weak beta males included) has been to avoid upsetting progressives.
Comment by John67 on June 3, 2021 at 11:07 am
Meanwhile Steven Usry started holding what he calls “broad-casting” meetings at a local UM Church near Mt. Bethel. He reportedly told a small gathering of Mt. Bethel members that he believes Bishop Haupert-Johnson will move to close the church and evict its lay leadership and staff if they do not relent and receive him as their senior pastor by July 1.
During one of the sessions on Monday, a long serving member at Mt. Bethel suffered a massive heart attack and was later pronounced dead at a local hospital. At the request of Mt. Bethel’s Staff Parish Relations Committee, Usry cancelled other meetings he had scheduled for the week. https://wesleyancovenant.org/2021/05/27/update-three-bishops-stir-controversy/
Comment by Anthony on June 3, 2021 at 4:39 pm
John67,
Yes, that’s the WCA article that I referenced above with my May 29 post.
This bishop is afraid to go and talk with the Mt Bethel people? Dangerous?? This is her view of the people at Mt Bethel? They’re dangerous? She needs to stand in front of a mirror to see who is dangerous, certainly dangerous to the traditional Methodists in her conference. She obviously loathes traditionalists and is the dangerous party here.
She brought this crisis on at Mt Bethel with the egregious tactics she used and is still using! Of course the people at Mt Bethel are upset, to say the least. That church is in a 30 day prayer time during the month of June because of her. That church just held a Hope & Healing service on June 2 because of her. Mt Bethel has started disaffiliation from the UMC. The church is hurting — all caused by Sue Haupert-Johnson. She constantly talks about doing no harm, and turns around and inflicts deplorable harm on this church. She’s their bishop, not their adversary. And, she’s continuing to rub salt into the wound by sending Steven Usry there, in a nearby UMC, to explain “his. vision” for Mt Bethel. As the largest and most vibrant church in her conference, a real Christian bishop would be going there to find out what Mt Bethel’s vision is in order to take it to the rest of the North GA Conference.
This all can’t be made up — it is happening in real time, in the North GA Conference of the United Methodist Church — that’s right, it’s still called a church.