Leading African United Methodism in Troubling Times: Lessons from King Rehoboam
The worldwide United Methodist Church (UMC) lost its relevance in almost all African annual conferences on 4 May 2024 when the church voted officially to become a liberal denomination at its postponed 2020 General Conference held in Charlotte, North Carolina, USA. At that General Conference, the highest decision-making body of the worldwide denomination, its predominantly liberal and progressive delegates officially legalized same-sex marriage and the ordination of lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) persons as pastors and leaders within the denomination.
In addition, the denomination changed the biblical definition of marriage. Its current official definition is as follows: “Within the church, we affirm marriage as a sacred lifelong covenant that brings two people of faith, an adult man and woman of consenting age, or two adult persons of consenting age into union with one another.” The denomination further removed the ban on homosexual practice as being incompatible with Christian teaching. In summary, the worldwide UMC has rewritten the Holy Bible to enable adherents of its doctrines to preach strange gospels contrary to the undiluted and liberating Gospel of Jesus Christ. Because of these sweeping changes to the doctrines and discipline that had governed the life and ministries of the worldwide UMC since its birth in May 1968 until 3 May 2024, the church is now a liberal denomination with which no United Methodist annual conference in Africa wants to identify.
However, there is an ongoing massive effort by some politically influential and economically powerful liberal United Methodists who are taking advantage of the poverty-stricken condition of most African annual conferences to compel some of their leaders to ensure that United Methodist annual conferences be denied any rights to decide their own future. Some of these leaders are fast becoming dictators in their annual conferences. They are on the rampage, using suspension, dismissal, and all sorts of threats to ensure that no pastors or leaders of the laity with dissenting opinions stand in their way. It is against this backdrop that I write. This article cautions such leaders to guide against neo-colonial tendencies in which they allow themselves to be compromised against their principles and enforce unbiblical and unethical practices in the church against the will of their members. This article therefore encourages them to take a cue from the leadership of King Rehoboam, son of King Solomon, to avoid the perilous consequences that could accompany their decisions and actions to their own detriment.
1 Kings 12: 1-18 tells the story of Rehoboam, the son of King Solomon who succeeded his father as king over the united kingdom of Israel. King Saul served as the first king of the united kingdom (1 Sam. 9-10), bringing to an end the nation’s theocratic rule and the spiritual guidance of the Prophet Samuel (1 Sam. 8). David succeeded Saul following his death at the hands of Israel’s archenemy, the Philistines (1 Sam. 31; 2 Sam. 2, 5). Solomon succeeded his father, David (1 Kings 1:28-53). At the end of his reign, he appointed his son Rehoboam to succeed him (1 Kings 12).
However, unlike his grandfather, David, and father, Solomon, Rehoboam’s reign led to the political division of the kingdom. The northern kingdom, Israel, comprised ten tribes that rejected his rule. Rehoboam governed the southern kingdom, Judah, until his death. The Levites provided spiritual leadership for the temple in Jerusalem in Judah. As the succeeding chapters of the books of Kings and Chronicles would later show, the division into the northern and southern kingdoms led to numerous spiritual, social, economic, and political challenges for the people of God.
The questions that linger are: what went wrong with the leadership of King Rehoboam? Why was it impossible for him to sustain the united kingdom that his forebears successfully governed until their demise? Why was King Rehoboam restricted to the southern kingdom of Judah until his demise? Based on insights from this passage of Scripture, I Kings 12:1-18, I believe God has something to say to all contemporary leaders of the UMC in Africa. God has something to say to leaders who might attempt to walk against the will of God in the wake of the liberalization of the worldwide UMC. God also has something to say to leaders who are committed to biblical Christianity in Africa, as opposed to liberal, progressive Christianity. When God speaks, then the church must rise, as the conscience of the nation and God’s security guards, and prophetically declare God’s message.
King Rehoboam’s leadership and the consequences it had on Israel shed light on what God has to say about the current crisis within the worldwide UMC since it made the choice to become a liberal denomination. It also sheds light on the ripple effects upon individual annual conferences in Africa and collectively on African central conferences.
Following the death of King Solomon (1 Kings 11:43), all Israel came together at Shechem, a place known for national covenant making (Joshua 24:1), to crown Rehoboam as king. The citizens had suddenly transferred to Rehoboam the respect, honor, support, and loyalty they had for King Solomon. Following his ascendency, the entire nation, including all the civil society groups and opposition leaders came to him with an appeal: “During the kingship of your father, Solomon, he put a heavy yoke on us. Please reduce the yoke from upon us, and we will remain committed to you.” What was the yoke that the citizens were asking King Rehoboam to reduce?
King Solomon had levied heavy taxation upon the people to the extent that many were poverty-stricken. Even though he was rich, there were many in his kingdom who could hardly feed themselves or support their families (1 Kings 4:7, 22-23). King Solomon conscripted many of his citizens, mainly the men, into forced labor to increase his personal riches (1 Kings 5:13-14). He conscripted many into the military who had the privilege of being home with their families for only six months within a year (5:14), while serving for six months on foreign mission.
In addition, King Solomon demanded daily supplies of food from the poverty-stricken people of his kingdom—thousands of liters of flour, hundreds of goats and sheep, and deer (I Kings 4:23-24, 27-28). While King Solomon was exploiting the labor of his citizens to build mansions and idol-worship centers for each of his 700 wives and 300 concubines, many of his citizens did not have a home for themselves (1 Kings 11:1-8).
King Rehoboam expected the people to do the same for him that they did for his father, something the citizens did not want to continue to do under the new regime. They therefore appealed to him for a change of leadership approach. Upon hearing from the citizens, King Rehoboam asked the citizens give him time to consult and come back within three days for a response (vv. 6-8a). He consulted the elders (v.6), some of whom had served within his father’s government. They knew the national politics as well as the challenges King Solomon posed to the poverty-stricken masses. They were therefore upfront with him and encouraged him to listen to the citizens, reduce the yoke of hardship and slavery his father had subjected them to, and be a servant-leader to them. The elders further advised King Rehoboam that by doing so, the citizens would love him and be his servants forever.
In essence, the elders were saying to King Rehoboam, “be a servant-leader, not a dictator over your people.” Someone once said, “People do not care how much you know until they know how much you care.” If leaders desire the wholehearted loyalty of the people they lead, they must first serve them.
Sadly, however, King Rehoboam rejected the advice of the elders and moved on to consult his young and inexperienced friends who had grown up with him and were now serving within his government (vv.8b-9). They advised him against the counsel of the elders. They offered him this suggestion for a reply to the citizens, “My baby finger is thicker than my father’s entire waist! So, if my father made your workload heavy, I shall make it even heavier! If my father disciplined you with whips, I shall do it with scorpions!” (vv.10-11).
He decided to follow the advice of his young and inexperienced colleagues, not the elders. That is exactly what King Rehoboam said to the citizens when they came back to him after three days (vv.12-15). Without considering the consequences of his action, he humiliated his citizens, insulted and threatened them just as his young and inexperienced advisors had coached him to do.
The consequences of Rehoboam’s actions were devastating. Upon hearing the harsh, insulting, and threatening statements from King Rehoboam, the entire citizenry, led by their opposition leader, Jeroboam, protested his leadership (v. 16). The protest turned so violent that it resulted in the premature death of King Rehoboam’s Minister of Labor whom he had sent out to enforce his decision to double the hardship of his citizens. An angry mob stoned the labor minister to death (v. 18). They rejected Rehoboam’s leadership. The king’s life was threatened, and he had to escape to Jerusalem. He lost his popularity, influence, and leadership over the entire nation. The nation was eventually divided. All the king’s young friends escaped and left him alone to bear the consequences of his actions. In summary, King Rehoboam received a united kingdom from his father, Solomon, but his leadership left the nation divided and far away from God.
Lessons
There is much that the UMC leaders in Africa can learn from the story of King Rehoboam:
If our episcopal and other clergy and lay leaders of the UMC in Africa are to govern well in such a time as this, they must first seek counsel from God and God’s Word (Psalm 119:9-11; 105; Matthew 6:33).
They must seek counsel from the “Elders at the Gate of our church and nation,” not people who are ignorant of scriptural truths. Many of our church elders are men and women of integrity and credibility who have lived through stages of the church’s life and ministry and can honestly advise on what is good for ecclesial leadership in such a time as this.
Leaders must be wise and discerning because leadership is influence. What a leader says or does may have indelible consequences on present and future generations.
The worldwide UMC has endorsed many sinful and unbiblical practices that have ruined the integrity of the church. Amid these pitfalls, some economically powerful and politically influential people are now coercing some leadership of the UMC in Africa to endorse these practices, even if they would not do so initially. Unfortunately, some African UMC leaders have fallen for this deception. However, the scripture is clear: “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you” (2 Corinthians 6:17).
Good leaders put the best interest of their followers above their own. Our Lord Jesus Christ was such a model. He came not to be served but to serve and to give his life so that all of humanity might be saved from the consequences of sin and death (Mark 10:45).
As a leader, making decisions only to serve your personal interest will destroy your leadership and those who follow you.
King Rehoboam did not care whether the decision he made would give hope to his people or help him build a stronger nation. He therefore became intransigent, stubborn, and disrespectful to the elders, and took on a dictatorial posture. He had failed to discern that leaders can “make or break an organization; advance or destroy a cause; empower or stagnate a movement. Leaders can lead the way or lose the way, and in each case, take others with them.” We do not want this for the biblically committed, Christ-centered, and evangelically functional Methodism in Africa. We therefore caution leaders of the UMC in Africa who are driven by the wings of liberalism to take heed. We caution them to avoid the stubborn, disobedient, dictatorial, and ungodly spirit of Rehoboam that led to a divided Kingdom.
Conclusion
Amidst the ongoing crisis, I am confident that God has a future with hope for the next Methodism in Africa, devoid of any association with the liberal and progressive worldwide UMC. God will continue to build his church in Africa and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. However, God must work through God-fearing, Christ-centered leaders to accomplish God’s purpose for the next Methodism in Africa, not an unwise leader like Rehoboam. If the annual conferences in Africa are to avoid the consequences of Rehoboam’s rule upon Israel, if the church is to remain united, purpose-driven, vision-driven, and maintain its numerical and spiritual growth, then it behooves leaders of the UMC in Africa to heed lessons from King Rehoboam.
Poverty is not and should not be an impediment to our resolve to remain faithful disciples of Jesus Christ. The current lack of financial resources to support our hospitals, clinics, agricultural programs and other capital projects should not be a factor to cause us to compromise the faith, doctrine, discipline, and spirit with which we first started our walk with the Lord in the light of his Word.
The church in Africa and Africans in general are resilient people. We know how to survive on little and accomplish much. We know how to accelerate the spread of the liberating gospel of Jesus Christ without all the technologies and financial resources we might need. The undiluted message of the Gospel proclaimed through a Christ-centered, Spirit-filled, and obedient medium is all that matters, and God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit will take care of the rest. Let us continue to stand firm in the faith, and we shall see the deliverance of the Lord.
Jerry P. Kulah is Vice President of the School of Graduate and Professional Studies at the United Methodist University and General Coordinator of the Africa Initiative.