The Modern Methodist Church Crisis Examined – Anonymous

I was married on December 28, 1985, in the United Methodist Church (UMC) where I now attend, taught Sunday School for much of this time, and was appointed a lay speaker on May 21, 1998. I have also often spoken and published on the major problems with Darwinism, and the harm it has caused to society, religion, and science, and still causes, in hundreds of churches in America, Canada, Europe, and Africa, including many Methodist churches. One of the largest churches I have spoken in was a United Methodist church where I was very well-received.

Darwinism teaches that we are the product of billions of damaging events to the genome. These damaging events, called genetic mutations, are selected by natural selection, resulting in survival-of-the-fittest. These damaging events are caused by toxins including dangerous radiation, such as gamma and cosmic rays, and mutagenic chemicals. The problem is that close to 99 percent of all mutations are near neutral, deleterious, or lethal, and the evidence is clear: each new generation of humans contains many thousands of new mutations.

Each child has about 100 new mutations compared to his parents, and this child’s children will also have an additional 100 new mutations. Thus, the total mutation number in humans that is accumulating will eventually lead to mutational meltdown and extinction unless something drastic is done to reduce this mutational number. The view that mutations are our creator instead of God is favored by Darwinists and many in the UMC leadership. This is indicated by their consistently testifying in court in favor of the worldview that supports the idea that humans and all life are the result of billions of genetic damage incidents by toxins, not by an intelligent creator, is irresponsible. I am unaware of any exceptions to this observation.

My Concern

It may come as a surprise to many that the United Methodist Church leadership has played an important role in the pro-Darwinian, anti-Creation-Intelligent Design movements.  The Arkansas Methodist Bishop testified in the original 1982 creation science trial in Arkansas against efforts to rectify the presently all too common indoctrination in public schools in support of Darwinian atheistic evolution.  The judge who wrote the decision, William R. Overton, was also a Methodist layman.  He acknowledged in his decision, dated January 5, 1982, that opposition to the law designed to protect teachers who conclude that the science evidence against the view that mutations are our Creator, included the Arkansas Bishop of the United Methodist Church as well as the Bishop of the African Methodist Episcopal Church (p. 1).

When the 1986 Louisiana Darwinism anti-indoctrination case designed to protect teachers right to objectively present evolution in the classroom appeared before the Supreme Court, the Methodist Bishops filed a brief against this bill. Specific Methodists involved included Bishop Kenneth Hicks, of the Arkansas Conferences of the United Methodist Church, Bishop Frederick C. James of the African Methodist Episcopal Church of Arkansas.

Other Methodists that were involved in supporting Darwinism include The Reverend Earl B. Carter, minister of the United Methodist Church and program director of the North Arkansas Conference of the United Methodist Church, The Reverend George Panner, a United Methodist Church minister and program director of the Little Rock Conference of the United Methodist church, and Dr. John P. Miles, minister of St. James United Methodist Church in Little Rock, Arkansas, and vice-chair of Americans United for Separation of Church and State in Arkansas. Americans United for Separation of Church and State is very hostile to those who argue against mandated indoctrination of Darwinism. The bill they opposed was framed essentially to prevent Darwinian indoctrination and prohibit the common problem of discrimination against creationist teachers and professors.[1] Conversely, Free Methodist Church of North America often argued against the Darwinian worldview.[2]

When I was actively involved in the atheist movement, we saw especially the United Methodist Church as useful idiots for such testimony because we knew that Darwinism was the doorway to atheism. We saw the church as laying the seeds of their own demise, and recent surveys have elegantly supported this conclusion. A new Pew research poll found that over half of all persons under 30 were atheists or agnostic or, at the least, unchurched. According to an August 24, 2016, Pew research poll, a major reason why people are unaffiliated with a church is because of “learning about evolution” in school.[3]

In fact, as penned by one of the most respected writers in America, Yale Ph.D., Tom Wolfe, functional atheist Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895) known as Darwin’s bulldog created what is known as the X Club, which consisted of a group of nine prominent Darwinists, including Oxford Biology Professor Joseph Hooker, who met every month at a restaurant and set about—very successfully—stacking influential university science faculties with Darwinists. The X Clubbers had a big hand in creating the pro-Darwinist journal Nature (which thrives to this day). They attacked every Darwin doubter the moment he dared raise his voice. That mode of intimidation only intensified over time, leading to what is still known today as “the Neo-Darwinist Inquisition.”[4]

Furthermore, “Huxley became such an ardent Darwinist not because he believed in Darwin’s theory of natural selection—he never did—but because Darwin was obviously an atheist, just as he [Huxley] was.”[5] Thus, the goal of Darwinism from the beginning was a wedge to force theism out of society by social and legal pressure, and replace it with functional atheism.

Beliefs of the Laity

The beliefs of the typical UMC church member, though, are very different from that of the leadership.  I know of no Methodist at St. Paul’s where I attend who is not a creationist. Many Methodists have been active in the creation movement and some prominent Creationists are Methodists, although the majority of those active in the American creation movement are probably Lutherans.  Nor does this anti-creationist worldview reflect itself in the Methodist literature.  The Methodist Publishing house, David C. Cook, publishes weekly Sunday School lessons titled Sprint.  The September 4, 1988 issue, appropriately timed to be used at the beginning of the school year, asks “How did the world begin?” and answers “The Bible provides the answer to the big questions” such as this.  The authors of this article, Steve and Annie Wanberg, propose several possible answers, such as

  1. The universe always was, and always will be, and is continually creating itself.
  2. Ultimately the universe happened by chance, i.e., many critical elements came together at the right place and right time and, with much time and luck, here we are.
  3. The Bible’s answer is God created the universe with a specific plan and goal in mind.

The lesson does not imply the answer is theistic evolution, and is specifically critical of evolution as a whole.  It summarizes the basic evolutionary position as follows: “Some evolutionists claim believing that God created the universe doesn’t make scientific sense.  The theory of evolution, in its most basic form, says that all living things developed (“evolved”) from simpler living things.  Some even say that life, like the universe, began by chance (the right molecules in the right place at the right time).”  The authors then concluded that “it takes a lot of faith to believe all of that.”  The authors specifically state why, writing that

Scientists have searched for years to find fossil evidence to link one species to another.  Genetic changes do occur within each species.  But no evidence links one species of life to another.  The Bible clearly states what happened at the beginning.  The living God created life.  He spoke matter into being, then created many different creatures–each after their own kind.  We see variety in living beings because God made them that way.

They then, not only point out some of the primary evidence that creationists use against evolutionism, but conclude that “lack of evidence casts doubt on evolution’s truth.  …at least three scientific principles support belief in creation.”  They are 1) the conservation of energy, 2) the second law of thermodynamics, and 3) evolution’s mathematical improbability.  The authors conclude that there exist only two options, namely: “it all happened by chance or by God’s choice.  In the beginning God created, is not simply a Christian answer to the big question.  It just might be the only reasonable answer.”

Lesson 20 of this series, authored by Leanne Lucas, discusses the conflicts that can occur over this issue in schools.  She noted that “certain school subjects can also challenge the faith of young teens today.  ‘I know my science teacher thinks I’m weird because I don’t believe in evolution’ says Tony, ‘When I told him I believe the world was created, he just gave me a strange look and kept talking.  Of course, I have to learn the material and take the tests, but I feel better knowing that I spoke up once.’”

In the January 22, 1989 lesson, written by Elaine McCalla, the stress is on both how and why Christian students should speak out about their Christian faith in opposition to Darwinism in their various classes.  Under the section on science, the author states

science easily lends itself to conversations about God.  Christian students in biology class have many chances to express their faith.  Take the theories of evolution and creation, for example.  Christian students can point out the marvelous way things are made and how these [examples] point to a marvelous Maker—as discussed below an organization that does just this was banned.  Or, how about a question that is often asked: “Is man an animal?”

The ironic fact is that many UMC church leaders are not cognizant of the beliefs and feelings of, not only their members, but all too often those beliefs expressed in their own church publications.

The teacher’s manual for the 1989 lesson clearly explains the implications of these discussions in the student workbook.  It says: “imagine yourself in school…in your biology or science classroom.  It’s the first day of class” when the teacher, Mr. Hayes, who has a reputation as a tough but likable teacher, enters the room. There is instant quiet as Mr. Hayes

walks briskly to a stand at the front of the class and flips open a huge chart.  There, marching across the page are increasingly complex life forms, beginning with the amoeba and progressing to human beings.  You know what’s coming next.  “Today, class, we’ll get right into our study for the semester:  evolution,” says Mr. Hayes.  ‘We’re going to try to answer this question:  Where did it all come from?’  What would be your honest feelings right at this point?  Many students will probably express that they experience a sinking feeling.  Evolution and the origins of the universe are going to be discussed again from a non-Christian point of view, and they are probably the only Christians in the class.  They may be scared silly, and wish they could just quietly crawl under a desk.  One of our common reactions to a situation like this is fear.  We’re afraid because we think the other side has all the answers and all the logic.  Somehow, we suspect it’s not reasonable to believe that God created the world.  But there are very good logical and Biblical reasons for believing in Creation.  Let’s look at some of them.”

The unit then concludes:

Where did it all come from?  The Bible answers that question, while science struggles with it.  We have a totally creative God…How did God create everything?  The Bible does not describe the creation process in the same kind of technical terms a scientist might use.  However, it’s not unscientific.  In answering the question of how God created, science could be helpful–as long as it doesn’t ignore the statements the Bible does make.  But just keep in mind one thing.  Both the Christian, who says God started it all, and the atheist, who says the world just sort of began, are operating on faith.

Another example is the Methodist Holy Baptism for Children, which includes the following words: “In the days of Noah you saved those on the ark through water. After the flood you set in the clouds a rainbow. When you saw your people as slaves in Egypt, you led them to freedom through the sea. Their children you brought through the Jordan to the land which you promised.”[6] The church hierarchy has frequently formally testified in court against those methods, and also those persons, who hold these beliefs.

Banning Persons Who Believe What the Church Publications Teach

The United Methodist church has had far more than its fair share of controversy lately, and the church bishops are not innocent in this controversy. They were, in 2016, given the title “censor of the year” for banning a group of Christian Educators and scientists from displaying a table of scientific literature at their conference in Oregon, even though many other groups, including some very controversial ones, were allowed a table at the conference to present their literature. The banned scientists produce books and films about the wonders of nature that give testimony to the Creator. The films include topics such as the wonders of bird design, the dolphin’s sonar system, the metamorphosis and design of butterflies, and even the privileged position that our home planet has in the solar system.

Their rejection of these films is ironic in view of the fact that the most common reason people give in surveys for believing in God is the wonders of the creation. As Romans 1:20 says “For ever since the world was created, people have seen ….  through everything God made, his invisible qualities–His eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.” This view was even reflected in the 2016 UMC Lent program, which says “Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth. You brought all things into being and called them good. From the dust of the earth you formed us into your image and breathed into us the breath of life.”

Many Methodists have expressed the concern described above by leaving the church. This may be part of the reason why, according to official data, The U.S. United Methodist Church has lost 116,063 members in the last two years alone.   This is the equivalent to losing a 318-member local church every day of the year. In 1964, the Church had over 12 million members; in 2015 it had 7.2 million, and the average weekly attendance is now only about 2.8 million, less than the Mormons, a church founded only in the 1800s. As of December 2015, the once tiny Mormon Church total membership was approaching 19 million. Total wards and branches was 30,016, and total full time missionaries was 74,079 covering nearly every country in the world.  Mormon converts last year alone totaled 257,402.

I wrote to the Methodist church leadership almost a year ago about my concerns expressed above, and have yet to receive the courtesy of an answer from even one of the 5 bishops that I wrote to. At the same time, some churches are growing. Many research studies have researched the reasons why some churches are growing, and others are declining. Thus, as Romans 1:20 says, church leadership has no excuse.

The Church Supports Liberal Causes

The United Methodist Church has a long history of supporting so-called liberal causes, such as Darwinism and, most notoriously, Darwinian Eugenics. Methodists and other theologically liberal religious leaders in the last century were actively writing articles for religious journals and preaching sermons from the pulpit on the need for humanity to apply eugenics to breed a superior human race by eliminating or reducing “inferior” humans as Darwinian eugenics teaches. Eugenics is the application of Darwinism in the attempt to produce this “superior race” by state control of human reproduction, such as was applied in Nazi Germany that resulted in the murder of over 15 million persons that the Darwinian eugenicists regarded as inferior.  For example, during the height of the American Eugenic movement Methodist minister Reverend Harry F. Ward, a professor of Christian Ethics at Union Theological Seminary, wrote in the magazine Eugenics that Christians and eugenicists were fighting a common battle because both were concerned with the ‘challenge of removing the causes that produce the weak.’ The Reverend Phillips Endecott Osgood, the rector of St. Mark’s Church in Minneapolis, … urge[d] people of faith to purge ‘the “dross” of humanity’ [by eugenics].[7]

The Methodist church leaders are fully aware of this nefarious past which, in the U.S. at least, has resulted in the forced sterilization of over 200,000 people. It took decades, but the United Methodist Church eventually formally apologized for “the prominent role its churches and pastors [had] played in the eugenics movement. ‘As the Eugenics Movement came to the United States,’ the church said regretfully, ‘the churches, especially the Methodists, the Presbyterians, and the Episcopalians, embraced it.’”[8]

The many ministers that actively promoted Darwinian eugenics included “the Very Reverend Walter Taylor Sumner, dean of Chicago’s Protestant Episcopal Cathedral of Saints Peter and Paul.” One example is the Very Rev. Sumner “announced in 1912 that he would only marry couples with a ‘certificate of health’ from a reputable physician.”[9] Not long afterwards the

New York Times reported that two hundred Chicago clergy [had] adopted a resolution ‘urging pastors to direct their energies toward creating public opinion indorsing [sic] Dean Sumner’s plan.’ …New York’s West End Presbyterian Church was an organizing center [of eugenics], with the Reverend Dr. A. E. Keigwin convening his fellow Protestant clergy to ‘push a eugenics campaign.’[10]

One Methodist attempting to reconcile eugenics with Christianity was Princeton University biologist Edwin Grant Conklin.  He was a licensed Methodist Episcopal Church preacher, and taught at Rusk University, a Methodist institution.  In his book Heredity and Environment in the Development of Man, Conklin included a section on genetics and ethics[11] that relied on the New Testament parable of the talents[12] to support his claim that an important application of the parable is to use our talents to produce better races through eugenic sterilization of inferior persons, especially racial minorities.  Eugenics was even declared a means of bringing God’s kingdom on the Earth, and God gave us evolution to help us to achieve this goal.  Conklin stressed that “improvement of the species is the highest ethical obligation” of mankind.[13]

The Methodist hierarchy first embraced Darwinism and, eventually, eugenics, for many reasons.  One major reason was, due to the growing power and status of science and to the respect that society as a whole held for science, especially the clergy.  A somewhat uncritical acceptance of modern science, and this included evolution and its natural stepchild, Darwinian eugenics, was often part of the educated culture of trained ministers.

The clergy were very aware of the common labels used to demean the church, such as “light versus darkness”, “superstition versus reason” and religion was often seen as darkness and superstition, and science as light and reason.[14] Some Methodist clergy, aware of their own declining prestige, endeavored to adopt what they believed was the “modern” approach to the science of eugenics because they believed that it would result in more respect for Christianity from secular society. They also thought it would increase their respectability in general and, as a result, the acceptance of their Christian message.[15] The end result has been the major decline of liberal Christianity in America.

The Church and Slavery

The slavery issue was generally ignored by The Methodist Church until its 1844 General Conference held in Louisville, Kentucky. At this conference the pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions openly clashed. One of the church’s five bishops, James Andrew, had acquired slaves through marriage. After much acrimonious debate, the dissidents drafted a separation plan that resulted in the slaveholding states separating from The Methodist Episcopal Church and organizing their own church.[16] The Plan of Separation was adopted by almost the entire church, and the groundwork was prepared for the creation of The Methodist Episcopal Church, South.[17] They justified this view by referring to an earlier document that was written only a year after the colony of Georgia was chartered (1734), that the state law forbade

the introduction of slavery, and it was not until George Whitefield, co-founder with Wesley of Methodism, went from Georgia to England and persuaded the trustees of the colony to allow it, that slavery was introduced (1751). He is reported to have said, “I should think myself highly favored if I could purchase a good number of slaves, in order to make their lives comfortable and lay a foundation for bringing up their posterity in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” Twenty years afterward he died, leaving seventy-five slaves in connection with his Orphan House plantation in Georgia. For without repealing the law of 1734, the colony had from 1751 allowed slave-traders to sail to Savannah and sell their heathen victims to the highest bidder.[18]

The Methodist Book of Discipline describes the schism as follows:

Delegates from the southern states met in Louisville, Kentucky, in May 1845, to organize their new church. Their first General Conference was held the following year in Petersburg, Virginia … Bitterness between northern and southern Methodists intensified in the years leading to Abraham Lincoln’s election in 1860 and then through the carnage of the Civil War. Each church claimed divine sanction for its region and prayed fervently for God’s will to be accomplished in victory for its side.

The MEC, South maintained its own polity for nearly a century, specifically until 1939, when the modern Methodist Church was formed. Ironically, the church established many missions to the slaves, and thousands of both slaves and free blacks became active church members.[19] The church was also a major force for the education of Blacks, all which makes their open support for slavery all the more ironic.

At the 1856 conference, the 91 delegates who favored only partial prohibition of slavery were labeled “radical abolitionists,” and 31 voted to prevent prohibition in the slave holding states.[20] A major factor was that Rev. Roberts[21] and other men were expelled from the United Methodist Church for “insubordination” over their writings and speaking on what they saw as the churches’ departure from Methodist doctrine and beliefs. A significant issue was Roberts and his followers were strongly opposed to slavery at a time when the Methodist church supported slavery, or at least refused to take a stand against it.[22] Thus, all antislavery action was deferred until later, an approach still used by the Church Hierarchy administration today to avoid dealing with certain issues.

The Free Methodist Church which organized at a Pekin, New York meeting in 1860, also separated over opposition to slavery. The Free Methodist Church today reports 77,000 members in the United States, and worldwide 850,000 members in 82 nations. The word Free was added to the church name both because of the new church’s anti-slavery position, and also because church pews were to be free to all rather than sold or rented, as was once common in Methodist churches. The election of Lincoln in November, 1860 brought a crisis “to the Methodist Church” which then still dragged its feet![23]

The Methodists and Other Far Left Socialist Groups

The small Methodist population in Nazi Germany (the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, abbreviated to Nazi) was deemed foreign because Methodism began in England, and did not develop in Germany until the nineteenth century with the missionary work of Christoph Gottlob Müller and Louis Jacoby.[24] Due to this history, many Methodists felt the need to be ultra-patriotic, “more German than the Germans,” to avoid suspicion. Methodist Bishop John L. Nelsen even toured the U.S. on Hitler’s behalf. Methodist Bishop F. H. Otto Melle took a more collaborationist position that included, apparently, sincere support for Nazism. To show his gratitude to the bishop, in 1939, Hitler made a gift of 10,000 marks to a large Methodist congregation to purchase an organ.

The Homosexual Issue

Another current conflict is over the LGBTQ issue, specifically if those who openly practice homosexuality can be ordained as Methodist Ministers and Bishops. In spite of clear statements in both the Bible and The Book of Discipline[25], the church, as of 2016, has “unanimously elected the denomination’s first openly homosexual bishop,” Rev. Karen Oliveto, who is “married” to another woman.[26] Oliveto believes, as do non-Christians, that the Bible is “flawed,” and thus is not the infallible word of God.

An example of the distortion was a missive that I published in the West Ohio Conference in March of 1999. Specifically, I wrote (edited for length):

It is imperative when writing articles that one makes a reasonable effort to ensure one’s facts are correct. I am referring to an editorial in United Methodist Review, November 27, 1998, on the Matthew Shepard case. Having closely followed this case, I am not aware of any evidence that indicates that “the reason for his death” was because “he was gay,” as the article claimed.

Although two persons have been arrested, in America one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Since we don’t legally know who committed the crime, we can hardly determine their motive.

Assuming those arrested are guilty, it is clear that the motive of the murder was not because Matthew Shepard was gay. The accused are evidently career criminals who have assaulted victims of a wide variety of races and creeds, and primarily responded according to opportunity and circumstances.

This is a concern because dishonesty has earmarked the so called gay movement, and unfounded claims have been endlessly repeated and accepted as true. The publicity will likewise influence the trial and is not unlikely that the case will be thrown out of court because of the inflammatory, malicious, and salacious publicity before the trial, thus rendering a fair trial impossible.

If the editor’s statistics are correct and only two “homosexual” men were killed in 1996, these two murdered persons, labeled homosexual, received far more publicity than the millions of Christians that have been mercilessly slaughtered recently, many in the past few months alone.

I am not condoning murder or hate crimes, but it does not help the situation to grossly distort the facts to the point that has been seen in the media. Murder is murder and should uniformly be condemned, but it seems that we are much more concerned about condemning certain murders than others.

I have seen scores of articles in United Methodist publications about crimes against gays, but have almost never seen articles which discuss the holocaust now occurring against Christians. This seems enormously ironic. Hefley—in a well-documented book on Christians killed for their faith—concluded that more Christians have been murdered for their faith since the turn of the century than have been murdered throughout all of history. I have read also of virtually nothing in United Methodist publications about putative Christians murdering other Christians—the European theater in World Wars I and II were primarily Christian countries fighting other Christian countries on an enormity so great that the conflicts were called world wars, an honor no other war in history has earned.

This is especially a concern in that, having worked with many persons who are involved in the homosexual lifestyle, it became more and more apparent to me that homosexuals do not exist. Only persons who engaged in homosexual behavior exist, and this includes both persons labeled homosexuals and heterosexuals. Self-labeled heterosexuals commonly engage in homosexual behavior when inmates and adolescents, and also in the so-called tearoom trade.[27]

Empirical research on “homosexuals” consistently finds they also regard heterosexual behavior as erotic and some heterosexuals commonly sporadically engage in homosexual behavior. Some persons who live a heterosexual lifestyle for 20 or 30 years not uncommonly switch to a homosexual lifestyle, such as in prison. Likewise, people involved in a homosexual orientation not uncommonly adopt a heterosexual orientation. To dichotomize the two is a gross distortion of both history and reality.

In graduate school, I learned that Freud believed homosexuality was a stage that many young people progress through, and some become stuck at this stage of development, never maturing into a heterosexual adjustment. While not generally a fan of Freud, all I have learned since then has not contradicted his conclusion.

Among the other often repeated untrue statements include that 10 percent of the American population identify with the homosexual orientation (the rate is closer to 2 percent), and that scientists have proved homosexuality is genetic (also not true). These distortions do not help us evaluate the situation or appropriately deal with it. In the long run, they will do a great deal to hurt both the lives of both those who identify with heterosexual as well as the homosexual orientation.

As Christians, we must foremost be concerned with the truth. Lies may appear to benefit some in the short run, but as Christ stated “the truth shall make you free.” Lies also enslave. Unfortunately, the homosexual issue may well split the church, and to avoid this we must foremost seek the truth.[28]

The denomination hierarchy has so-far refused to respond to the widespread concerns about this case. World Magazine added that the UMC fears that Bishop Oliveto’s election will only accelerate a long-growing movement toward a major church schism. And the number of Christians murdered due to their faith is now estimated to be around 170,000 a year, a fact that is rarely noted by the church hierarchy, not to mention doing something about this.

Another case, that of Dammann, has effectively “nullified church law acquitting an openly lesbian minister.”[29] There are now seven main distinct categories of legally protected sexual orientations (homosexuality, lesbianism, bisexuality, trisexuality, transsexuality, transvestitism and questioning, i.e. where one waffles on one’s sexual orientation). Is the church going to lobby for the social acceptance of all of these putative sexual orientations? What about Necrophilia, Zoophilia, Transvestism, fetishism, frotteurisme, paraphilias, prostitute phila, Autoerotic Asphyxia, Gynecomania, Anaclitism, Ephebophilia, Gerontophilia, Urination Spermatorrhea and several dozen other sexual orientations. To be consistent the church should lobby for each of these, condoning those who practice such sexual orientations? The latest fad is sadomasochism made enormously popular by the bestselling book and movie titled 50 Shades of Grey. Is the church leadership going to get behind this latest protected, right? Rather than wade into this moral morass, if they defended the basic Christian morality, they could avoid this entire moral quagmire.

The Pending Split

It now appears inevitable that the UMC will split into two churches; the question is not if, but when. The split will probably be into one church that supports the main bulwark of atheism, namely Darwinism, one of the most destructive ideologies in history with a mortality toll of over 250,000,000 and a morbidity toll of well over 750,000,000,[30] and conflict theorist view commonly called “communism lite,” as supported by the present Democratic party and self-proclaimed Methodist, failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

The method of achieving communism lite is to rectify what they call “economic inequality,” through coerced “economic redistribution” by government fiat. This involves taking both money and property from those who, usually through hard work, have achieved success, and allowing the government to allocate the money and property confiscated from those who rightfully earned it to those persons that the government deems worthy. This system has failed in every nation that has attempted it. Current examples include the once prosperous Cuba and Venezuela, the latter a nation with enormous mineral wealth that is now mired in economic and political chaos.

The second church will support Biblical morality and conform to the facts of scientific research, recognizing that Darwinism teaching from the goo to humans by way of lower life forms, has been proven false by science, and has never happened, and could never have happened. They also recognize that behavior which leads to disease and premature death, cutting one’s lifespan almost in half, should be discouraged, or at least not actively supported as the first church does. Nor do they, in conformity with the UMC Book of Discipline, approve the rape often of underage boys by males and, in contrast to the other UMC church, while loving the sinner but hating the sin and concerned about its deleterious health effects, will not encourage or support such behavior, a sexual orientation estimated to inflict as much as 10% of the American population.

Why It Matters

My concern outlined above was documented by the highly-respected pollster George Barna, who in 2016 completed an extensive analysis of the spiritual condition in the USA by means of a large nationwide polling sample. Some of his conclusions include:

  • “The nation’s morals and values are a mess. … A majority argues that co-habitation, sexual fantasies, sex outside of marriage, giving birth outside of marriage, divorce, doctor-assisted suicide, homosexual relations, and same-sex marriage are now all morally acceptable endeavors.”
  • “During the past decade alone there have been huge declines in the proportion of people … who claim to have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ.”
  • “Belief in God, trust in the Bible, and reliance on Jesus alone for salvation have all declined precipitously. Fewer than one in five adults believes that absolute moral truth exists and is defined in the Bible.”
  • “The unchurched population is growing like cancer …”
  • “The Bible is taking a big hit. … Only one out of three adults believe it is accurate in all of the principles it teaches.”

The church that does nothing to stop this slide into moral crisis and atheism ultimately contributes to it. Just as the hierarchy has in the past defended or condoned slavery, Nazism, eugenics, they now indirectly condone sexual behavior such as honey dipping, fisting, rimming, and golden showers that is detrimental to health and longevity. They also actively oppose supporters who support the main reason that people give for their belief in God, namely the evidence and wonders of creation.


Alexander, Gross. 1907. A History of the Methodist Church, South, in the United States. Nashville, TN: Smith and Lamar.

Bruce, James. 2016. “Aid to Orthodoxy: The Faithful Future of Two Major Protestant Denominations May Lie in Africa.” World Magazine, October 1, p. 58.

Buckley, James M. 1898. A History of Methodism in the United States. New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers.

Cohen, Adan.  2016.  Imbeciles: The Supreme Court, American eugenics, and the Sterilization of Carrie Buck. New York: Penguin Press.

Dyck, Sally and Bishop Sara Ehrman. 2010. Faith, Science, and the Message of Jesus. Nashville, TN: Abingdon.

Lombardo, Paul A.  2008.  Three Generations, No Imbeciles: Eugenics, the Supreme Court, and Buck v. Bell. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Mathews, Donald. 1965. Slavery and Methodism: A Chapter in American Morality, 1780-1845. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Melton, J. Gordon. 2003. Encyclopedia of American Religion. Detroit, MI: Thomson-Gale.

Plowman, Edward E. 2004. “Northwest Ordinance.” World, April 3, p. 29.

Rosen, Christine.  2004.  Preaching Eugenics.  New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 15, 59, 66, 65, 81, 91, 118, 132, 135.

The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church.  2012. The United Methodist Publishing House.

World. 2016. World Magazine, 31(17):8.

[1] Bergman, Jerry. 2016.  Silencing the Darwin Skeptics. Southworth, WA: Leafcutter Press.

[2] Fred M. Hechinger. 1986. About Education; Creationists Assert They Hold a Scientific View. The New York Times. September 8. Science section.

[3] Why America’s ‘nones’ left religion behind – Pew Research Center…/why-americas-nones-left-r.

[4] Wolfe, 2016, p. 48.

[5] Wolfe, 2016, p. 48.

[6] p. 3.

[7] Cohen, 2016, pp. 60–61.

[8] Cohen 2016, p. 61.

[9] Cohen, 2016, p. 56.

[10] Cohen 2016, p. 56.

[11] Conklin, 1920, pp. 301-326.

[12] Conklin, 1920, p. 316.

[13] Conklin, 1920, p. 322.

[14] Rosen, 2004, p. 9.

[15] Rosen, 2004, p. 13.

[16] Milton, 2003, p. 392.

[17] Alexander, 1907, p. 3.

[18] Alexander, 1907, pp. 4-5.

[19] Melton, 2003, p. 393.

[20] Buckley, 1898, p. 162.

[21] 1823-1893.

[22] Milton, 2003, p. 416.

[23] Buckley, 1898, p. 176.

[24] Burkhardt, Friedemann.  2003. Christoph Gottlob Müller und die Anfänge des Methodismus in Deutschland. Göttingen, Germany. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

[25] The specific words are: The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. Therefore, self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be certified as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church. “Self-avowed practicing homosexual” is understood to mean that a person openly acknowledges to a bishop, district superintendent, district committee of ordained ministry, board of ordained ministry, or clergy session that the person is a practicing homosexual. See Judicial Council Decisions 702, 708, 722, 725, 764, 844, 984, 1020 and Judicial Council Decisions 984, 985, 1027, 1028

[26]  “Elected.” World Magazine, August 20, 2016.

[27] Tearoom trade: a study of homosexual encounters in public places is a 1970 book by Laud Humphreys, a former Episcopal priest, whose Ph.D. dissertation was also titled “Tearoom trade”. He was married to a woman from 1960 to 1980 and when he came out as a gay man he divorced his wife. His research was an ethnographic study of anonymous male homosexual sexual encounters in public toilets. Humphreys concluded that the men participating in this activity came from diverse social backgrounds, had differing motives for seeking homosexual contact in this venue, and were often married, and most were self-perceived as “straight,” but some as “bisexual,” or “gay.”

[28] Keep in mind, this was written 16 years ago.

[29] Plowman, 2007, p. 29.

[30] Jerry Bergman.  Hitler and the Nazis Darwinian Worldview: How the Nazis Eugenic Crusade for a Superior Race Caused the Greatest Holocaust in World History. 2012. Kitchener, Ontario, Canada: Joshua Press. 356 pages. Worldcat lists it in 106 libraries and Jerry Bergman The Darwin Effect. Its influence on Nazism, Eugenics, Racism, Communism, Capitalism & Sexism. 2014. Green Forest, AR: Master Books. 360 pages. Now in 145 Worldcat libraries.

Shopping cart0
There are no products in the cart!
Continue shopping