Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

United Methodist Bishop Can't Speak for Herself
email exchange | 24 November 2004 | Bishop Charlene Kammerer, United Methodist Church

Posted on 12/02/2004 9:06:12 AM PST by mbarker12474

From me to Bishop Charlene Kammerer, presiding bishop over the Virginia Conference, United Methodist Church, 19 November 2004:

Bishop Kammerer,

Considering the increasing revelations of U.N. complicity in the Oil for Food scandal, and that money intended for Iraqi civil and humanitarian purposes has gone instead to reward the families of Palestinian terrorists, and the closely aligned activities and sympathies of U.N. and GBCS officers, what, if anything, do you propose be done to assure Virginia and General Methodists that all Conference and General BCS activities have been free from the OFF scandal?

Mike Barker Trinity UMC, King George VA

And Bishop Kammerer's response, 24 November:

Mr. Barker,

I received your e-mail in regard to the questions around Oil for Food program in Iraq through the UN. These questions, along with many, many others of humanitarian relief groups in war-torn countries, are appropriate to ask. However, it is not my responsibility to speak for the General Board of Church and Society, or any other Board, Agency, or Commission of our United Methodist Church. They are accountable to the General Conference. The Council of Bishops is also accountable to the General Conference.

My personal hope and prayer is that the desperate need for relief agencies to get into Iraq may be addressed. With ongoing security concerns, the malnutrition of children and the health of Iraqis in general, has plummeted to a new low. Children are always the first victim of war. I am pleased that many ongoing efforts through our denomination are responding to the basic needs for shelter, health, and food for Iraqi citizens.

Charlene P. Kammerer


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: bishop; kammerer; methodist; off; oilforfood; unitedmethodist; virginiaconference
What furry little creature comes to mind when reading Bishop Kammerer's response?

Funny how she claims speechlessness to this question, yet UMC bishops otherwise run amok with various denouncements of the United States and Israel, and statements of praise for the U.N.

Mike B. King George, VA

1 posted on 12/02/2004 9:06:15 AM PST by mbarker12474
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: mbarker12474
I assume the "General Conference" reports directly to the CINC-U? (Read: Commander-in-Chief of the Universe) aka GOD. How convenient of Bishop Kammerer.....not many of us ordinary poor Souls can get the answers to that question here in the physical realm.
2 posted on 12/02/2004 9:12:52 AM PST by bra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mbarker12474

How about a big furry lesbian. She/it sure spends a lot of Methodist money and time pushing the gay agenda:

http://search.yahoo.com/bin/search?p=Charlene%20P.%20Kammerer%20Gay


3 posted on 12/02/2004 9:16:29 AM PST by Grampa Dave (Writers of hate GW/Christians/ Republicans Articles = GIM=GAY INFECTED MEDIOTS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave

The UMC has lost its way.


4 posted on 12/02/2004 9:23:07 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mbarker12474

Maybe you should ask her who is responsible to answer these questions so you can direct them to the appropriate person?

She is very newly appointed as Bishop in the Richmond area. So far, judging by her response to you, I'm not impressed.


5 posted on 12/02/2004 9:23:13 AM PST by iceskater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave

Oy. This does not bode well for the UMC in the Richmond area.


6 posted on 12/02/2004 9:23:50 AM PST by iceskater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mbarker12474

Heeeey wait a minute....(been thinking some more on this)

I thought the Bishop was supposed to be our rep to the GC? Why is she ducking her responsibility?


7 posted on 12/02/2004 9:26:37 AM PST by iceskater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mbarker12474

The United Methodist Church is apostate and heretical and I would expect nothing less from these miscreants.


8 posted on 12/02/2004 9:30:52 AM PST by PeterFinn ("Tolerance" means WE have to tolerate THEM, they can hate us all they want.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PeterFinn
The United Methodist Church is apostate and heretical and I would expect nothing less from these miscreants.

Gee, thanks.
9 posted on 12/04/2004 6:18:21 PM PST by TexasGreg ("Democrats Piss Me Off")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TexasGreg

"Gee, thanks."

You're welcome. It's nothing I haven't said to UMC Bishop Melvin Talbert or UMC Bishop Shamana, a woman who actively practices paganism as a UMC Bishop.

So far neither one has given me a substantial retort to my charges that the UMC is apostate & heretical. I made these charges due to the open acceptance of sin in the church and the substance of my charge of apostasy and the promulgation of sin is the substance of my charge of heresy: paganism, idolatry, homosexuality, adultery, atheism, and more are all accepted by the church and all are promoted by the church in various "ministries".

I've been told I'm 'mean spirited' and 'hard hearted' but so far neither Bishop has gone so far as to tell me I'm wrong. I've asked both of them to say I'm wrong and they won't commit to that. Isn't that something?

Because I'm not wrong and they know it.

So I left the UMC and am now a Wesleyan Methodist.


10 posted on 12/06/2004 8:35:47 AM PST by PeterFinn ("Tolerance" means WE have to tolerate THEM, they can hate us all they want.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: PeterFinn
You're welcome.

I was being sarcastic. At the time it was the only response which your remark seemed to merit.

So I left the UMC and am now a Wesleyan Methodist.

I pray that you have found a place where you can, in good conscious, belong to a family of faith which provides you with access to the means of grace ... particularly those pertaining to the development of the fruit of the spirit.

I've been told I'm 'mean spirited' and 'hard hearted'...

Somehow, I'm not in the least bit surprised. It is certainly how you come across on this board. I hope you're not this way in person, or you risk a fat lip.

While I am certainly aware of some heretical and apostate UM clergy, bishops, and laity -- as I am aware of heretics in many other denominations -- I would never go so far as to arrogate to myself the power to judge an entire denomination of 10 million believers as apostate. Certain, specific, individuals ... yes. An ENTIRE denomination ... no. In my opinion, that is simply the height of spiritual arrogance.
11 posted on 12/07/2004 12:14:55 AM PST by TexasGreg ("Democrats Piss Me Off")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TexasGreg

It's called discernment. The UMC as a denomination is leading its people away from God. Are there good people in the UMC? Of course there are. There are good Communists, too, but that doesn't make Communism any less subject to a blanket condemnation.

The UMC is a shrinking denomination and will continue to shrink as more and more decent people become aware of the non-Christian practices promulgated by the various conferences and Bishops.

As far as apostasy and heresy goes, here's one example:

The UMC promotes homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle to its membership. That is heresy.

They also promote this lifestyle to people who are coming into knowledge of the faith...creating a witness that is in clear contradiction to Scripture: this is apostasy.

If the UMC ceased calling itself a Christian faith then my charges would be empty and I'd let it go. Buddhist, for example, are not heretics or apostates since they do not profess to be Christian.

Since the UMC is more and more resembling the Bahai faith I can't imagine it will be too many years before a General Conference dissassociates itself with Christianity and Scripture since both are inherently intolerant of sin.


12 posted on 12/07/2004 10:41:20 AM PST by PeterFinn ("Tolerance" means WE have to tolerate THEM, they can hate us all they want.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: PeterFinn

"Somehow, I'm not in the least bit surprised. It is certainly how you come across on this board. I hope you're not this way in person, or you risk a fat lip."

By the way, I am exactly this way in person. I've said nothing to you that I have not said IN PERSON to the two aforementioned UMC Bishops. And do note that neither have them has ever told me I was wrong.

Interestingly enough I've endured threats of violence mostly from the most liberal and "tolerant" people in the UMC. Your 'fat lip' comment sounds typical. As for myself, I have NEVER threatened anyone in the UMC but have received such threats more times than I can count.

On the one occasion in 1994 when one of the "loving and tolerant" people actually did attack me he came at me with a chair. I took the chair from him and then dislocated his shoulder, tearing his rotator cuff, all without hitting him. The police took him to the hospital and then booked him and released him. It was that incident that was key in my leaving the church.

What precipitated his assault? I had dared to say that homosexuality was wrong and should not be an accepted practice in the church. More specifically, this man was teaching Sunday school children ages 6-8 about homosexuality and lesbianism and one of the parents had brought a complaint to me. I acted on it.

My particular congregation had been an Evangelical Brethren congregation prior to the UM in 1967 and was fairly conservative and evangelical. Evangelism is anaethema to the UMC and the pastor the District imposed on us in 1991 was a liberal, pro-homosexual, pacifist (except when it came to his family - then he wasn't a pacifist), and vehemently anti-evangelical saying that Christians had no right to support missions or missionaries.

This is what caused me to become militant in defense of my faith and it also was key in my conversion from a life-long liberal to a committed conservative.

Anymore, I have no patience for you people. If you want to threaten me, have at it. Be advised that if you are so inclined to actually carry through with such a threat you do so at your own peril.

And why is it so hard for a bunch of people who get mad at me for saying how un-Christian they are to act Christian? I expect mature, grown-up people to handle themsleves without playground antics and I expect Christians to act like Christians - especially to each other.

So the threats and etc. I have received from UMC atheists, liberals, lesbians, and (ironically) one pacifist are all just so much more proof to me that you are not a Christian faith anymore.

It'd be much more fun for you to elevate your discourse above mere threats to perhaps discussing with me why the UMC calls itself a Christian faith whilst simultaneously rejecting 2000 years of Christian belief.

But there I go again being a hard-hearted and mean-spirited conservative who wants to talk about such trivialities as facts, faith, and Scripture.


13 posted on 12/07/2004 11:55:02 AM PST by PeterFinn ("Tolerance" means WE have to tolerate THEM, they can hate us all they want.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: PeterFinn
Anymore, I have no patience for you people. If you want to threaten me, have at it.

I have not threatened you. My remark was relative to how some people might respond to the pervasive stream of caustic judgmentalism that you exude. It is sad, but true, that some people might be prone to become angry when someone who is full of self-righteous superiority pontificates at them the way you do. I'm not saying that such a response is right, simply that the human sin nature tends to lean that direction and one shouldn't take chances.

Be advised that if you are so inclined to actually carry through with such a threat you do so at your own peril.

What threat? Again, I did not threaten you in any way. See my above remark.

And why is it so hard for a bunch of people who get mad at me for saying how un-Christian they are to act Christian? I expect mature, grown-up people to handle themsleves without playground antics and I expect Christians to act like Christians - especially to each other.

Agreed. Likewise, I appreciate it when I am not apriori labeled an apostate and treated like something other than a Christian by someone who professes to be a Christian. Such actions un-level the playing field.

So the threats and etc. I have received from UMC atheists, liberals, lesbians, and (ironically) one pacifist are all just so much more proof to me that you are not a Christian faith anymore.

People sin; the sins of a few -- yes, your contacts reflect only a tiny a FEW of the 10 million United methodists -- do not reflect the majority, who are definitely Christians regardless of what you say or believe.

It'd be much more fun for you to elevate your discourse above mere threats to perhaps discussing with me why the UMC calls itself a Christian faith whilst simultaneously rejecting 2000 years of Christian belief.

The UMC calls itself a Christian Faith because it is built upon Faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, depends upon His death upon the cross in atonement for our sins, proclaims His resurrection, and awaits His coming in glory. The United Methodist Church is growing in the Southeastern and Southcentral Jurisdictions, in Eastern Europe, Russia, and Africa, because, at least in these regions, there are large numbers of clergy and laity who profess and who teach the Articles of Religion, the EUB Confession of Faith, and the rest of the Doctrinal Standards, whose sermons are rooted in Scripture, and whose primary responsibility is to make disciples of Jesus Christ.
14 posted on 12/09/2004 4:35:55 AM PST by TexasGreg ("Democrats Piss Me Off")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: PeterFinn
The UMC promotes homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle to its membership. That is heresy.

Here is the United Methodist Church's position on homosexuality:

"Although we do not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider this practice incompatible with Christian teaching, we affirm that God’s grace is available to all." (Social Principles)

"Since the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching, self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be accepted as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church." (Discipline: ¶304.3)

"Ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches." (Discipline: ¶ 332.6)

These statements can hardly be viewed as promoting "homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle."

Since the UMC is more and more resembling the Bahai faith I can't imagine it will be too many years before a General Conference dissassociates itself with Christianity and Scripture since both are inherently intolerant of sin.

You really are out of touch with what's been happening in the UMC since you left it, aren't you? In the very least, it would appear that you're basing this upon a regionalized (i.e., west coast?) experience. Well ... don't hold your breath; since 1988 the General Conference has been getting more and more conservative with each passing quadrennium. Just witness the margin of victory in the votes dealing with the homosexual issue, marriage, abortion, and such. The margins of victory have become larger and larger with each successive General Conference. This will only accelerate as the church in the south continues to grow, the church in the north and in the west continues to shrink, and the elected representation from the south continues to make up a larger and larger percentage of the delegations to the GC. In short, we're winning.
15 posted on 12/09/2004 4:57:48 AM PST by TexasGreg ("Democrats Piss Me Off")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TexasGreg; PeterFinn
This may sound nuts, but as an evangelical United Methodist, in some ways I agree with both of you.

The UMC does have many of the problems and apostate leaders that Peter suggests. In addition to Bishops Talbert and Shamana, I think of Bishop Sprague and Bishop Galvan (now retired). We also have some bold, scriptural bishops who are trying to stand firm against the culture and the liberal theology, etc. of the denominational hierarchy: Bishops Timothy Whitaker, Scott Jones, William Willimon, James Swanson and Robert Hayes, for example. All were elected by delegates at General Conferences; since 1988 those have become more and more scriptural, hence more and more scriptural bishops have been elected to lead. Turning the denomination is like turning a battleship, so it takes time--but it's happening. Texas' analysis above is accurate.

My issue of primary import, after scriptural integrity, is abortion. Admittedly, in 1972 the UMC was on the wrong side (so was I then). While it still is in many ways, it is making progress there also. At GC'04 the "loving, caring, tolerant, diverse" UMs would not allow me to speak in favor of legislation simply because my pro-life position disagreed with their pro-choice position. I believe God used their hard-heartedness to pass legislation more pro-life than I would even have asked for. (See the September 2004 issue of the Lifewatch newsletter on their website.)

It seems to me that God works with individuals on one level and institutions and nations on another level. Be careful, Peter, that you do not judge all individuals within the UMC based on the actions of the institution. First, you shouldn't be judging at all: that's God's job. And second, you might misjudge an individual and the institution.

16 posted on 05/09/2005 8:02:17 PM PDT by Prov3456
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Prov3456

To quote myself:

"Are there good people in the UMC? Of course there are. There are good Communists, too, but that doesn't make Communism any less subject to a blanket condemnation."

The California-Nevada Conference of the UMC doesn't give a hairy-rats' patoot about the Book of Discipline or Scripture. You need only attend service at Glide Memorial when the Bishop is there to see the truth of this. That the rest of the UMC tolerates this without excommunicating them (Glide) speaks volumes about the UMC.

A couple years ago one of the Presbyterian synods considered revoking recognition of Baptism in the UMC due to the degree which the UMC has strayed from Christian thought. The Presbyterians considered this.

I'm not the only one who has noticed the UMC going off in weird directions.

Bishop Shamana, by the way, recently lost a court battle to seize the property of the congregation of St. Luke's in Fresno. The congregation held the property in a properly recorded congregational corporation and the Conference tried to seize the property when the congregation disassociated with the UMC.

She wanted the California Supreme Court to overthrow a century and a half of State property law in favor of the Book of Discipline. I found it quite hypocritical of Bishop Shamana that the BoD was suddenly important when the issue was $4 million worth of real estate but irrelevant when the issue is atheism, homosexuality, paganism, animism, or etc.

Three cheers to anyone tryng to stem the tide of secularist thought pervading the church.

I just don't see them winning this one.


17 posted on 05/11/2005 11:20:51 AM PDT by PeterFinn (The Holocaust was perfectly legal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Prov3456

I forgot to add that the CA/NV Conference pays for "Marriage Encounter" weekends for avowed homosexuals and lesbians out of apportionments and that fact has led about thirty congregations, including St. Luke's, to leave the UMC.

You can't be against homosexuality and lesbianism while helping such people have better gay and lesbian relationships.

The truth is that they are not against these practices.


18 posted on 05/11/2005 11:23:58 AM PDT by PeterFinn (The Holocaust was perfectly legal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: PeterFinn
You are correct: those annual conferences, bishops, and jurisdictions are not opposed to the practices you mentioned.

And that's precisely why United Methodists from those locations (you?) have left the denomination in favor of other denominations which still believe in, and follow, the Lord Jesus Christ and scripture.

Those areas of the country/world where Jesus Christ and sound scripture are still preached are the same areas of the denomination which are thriving and growing. You'd think the hierarchy would learn--but that would mean that the individuals and agenices would have to admit their error. (We can't have that now, can we? /sarcasm)

It will be interesting to see what the Jurisdicitional Conferences and the Judicial Council do with these heretical people and practices!

Incidentally, I know it sounds like I'm defending the/my denomination. I'm not really, simply stating facts. For many years I prayed that the Lord would "take me out of this denomination" and "send me somewhere else, anywhere else." Without going into detail let me just say that I continue to be a United Methodist precisely BECAUSE I know this is where the Lord wants me to be. I will stay here until-or unless-He directs me somewhere else. If that day arrrives, I'd be out of here as fast as you could say "United Methodist."

19 posted on 05/11/2005 11:51:58 AM PDT by Prov3456
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Prov3456

I remember some years ago there was a fracas in Louisville at a conference where a document for the UMC was drawn up and the leadership caved in to a cabal that sought to have "God" and "Jesus Christ" excised.

On CNN they interviewed a man leaving the conference and he said that they had to change the document "To keep the atheists in the church happy!"

My persistent question is why are these people so interested in a Christian denomination if they renounce and rebuke almost everything it means to be Christian?


20 posted on 05/11/2005 3:15:28 PM PDT by PeterFinn (The Holocaust was perfectly legal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: PeterFinn

...to which I say, "Amen!"


21 posted on 05/11/2005 4:44:30 PM PDT by Prov3456
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Prov3456

Dear Prov3456,

Wish I had seen this before but I've been out of town the past three+ days working an Emmaus Walk.

You remind me of ... me. Have we met? I'm in the North Texas Conference.


22 posted on 05/15/2005 8:56:44 PM PDT by TexasGreg ("Democrats Piss Me Off")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson