Judith Craig, Robert Huston, and The Methodist Church's Road to Decline

Opening the Door to the Counterfeit Church

***Beginning July 21 on The Fact Hunter, our “Exposing the Matrix” series reaches Layer 9: Religion and the Counterfeit Church. Over the next two weeks, we’ll examine the people, organizations, and institutions that, in our view, helped usher in an ecumenical system that has blurred biblical truth in the name of unity. We’ll trace the rise of influential leaders, denominational movements, interfaith partnerships, and theological shifts that have opened the door to a religious system increasingly willing to set aside the exclusive claims of Jesus Christ. Let me be clear: this series isn’t an attack on sincere believers—it’s an examination of the individuals and entities that have shaped what many now recognize as a counterfeit church, one that often promotes cooperation over conviction and compromise over the clear teaching of Scripture.

Many Christians have heard the word "ecumenical," but few stop to consider what it actually means. At its core, ecumenicalism is the effort to bring different churches together by emphasizing what they have in common instead of what separates them. Over time, that idea expanded beyond cooperation between Christian denominations and increasingly included formal dialogue with other religions, particularly Judaism.

This movement has conditioned Christians to see those who reject Jesus Christ as the Messiah as “partners in faith” rather than people who need the gospel. What began as cooperation gradually became theological compromise, blurring the clear biblical distinction between those who are in Christ and those who are not.

This is where the United Methodist Church began losing its doctrinal footing.

In 1968, the United Methodist Church was formed during an era when many mainline Protestant denominations were embracing ecumenical organizations and interfaith partnerships. New denominational agencies were created to build official relationships with other churches and with leaders of non-Christian religions. One of those agencies eventually became the General Commission on Christian Unity and Interreligious Concerns, whose purpose was to foster these relationships.

According to the United Methodist Church, the General Commission on Christian Unity and Interreligious Concerns was created to promote unity with other Christian denominations, while also representing the denomination in relationships with non-Christian religions through national and international ecumenical and interfaith organizations. Its stated mission is to “encourage dialogue, cooperation, and mutual understanding across religious boundaries.”

The problem is, this approach moves the church away from the Great Commission. Jesus didn’t command His followers to build spiritual partnerships with those who reject Him as the Messiah; He commanded them to “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations” (Matthew 28:19–20, KJV). When dialogue becomes the priority over proclaiming the Gospel, the church risks exchanging its mission to make disciples for a mission of religious coexistence.

One of the key figures involved in this effort was Rev. Robert W. Huston, who served as General Secretary of the commission.

Rev. Huston was deeply involved in the World Council of Churches, an organization dedicated to advancing worldwide ecumenism and interfaith cooperation. From my perspective, this should have been a major red flag. I believe the World Council of Churches represents one of the driving forces behind the modern ecumenical movement and what Scripture describes as the coming one-world religious system. Rather than calling the world to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ alone, this movement has increasingly emphasized religious dialogue, institutional unity, and cooperation across theological boundaries. In my opinion, leaders like Huston helped bring that philosophy into the United Methodist Church, moving the denomination further away from the Great Commission and closer to a system that values unity over biblical truth.

Under his leadership, the denomination entered into formal dialogue with Jewish organizations, including the American Jewish Committee. Project Interchange is a large part of their program.

Founded in 1982, Project Interchange is an “educational initiative” of the American Jewish Committee (AJC) that invites influential leaders—including politicians, journalists, university presidents, clergy, and civic leaders—to Israel for intensive, invitation-only trips. According to the AJC, its purpose is to give these opinion-makers firsthand exposure to Israeli society, government, history, and security issues, while building lasting relationships with Israeli leaders and encouraging participants to share what they have learned when they return home. More than 6,400 leaders from over 120 countries have participated.

The fact is, Project Interchange is far more than a travel program. It’s a long-term influence network designed to educate and build relationships with people who shape public opinion—including pastors and denominational leaders! When church leaders return from these trips with new relationships and perspectives, those experiences can influence how they teach, preach, and engage issues involving Israel and Judaism.

Continuing…

One of the most influential Jewish participants was Rabbi Marc H. Tanenbaum, Director of Interreligious Affairs for the American Jewish Committee. Tanenbaum worked with Protestant leaders—including Methodist representatives—to develop official statements encouraging closer Jewish-Christian relations and discouraging “centuries of hostility between the two communities” (Two thousand years according to my count).

To be fair, Judith Craig & Co. didn’t invent this movement, but in my opinion she helped normalize it. As bishop and later President of the Council of Bishops (1992–1993), she became one of the denomination’s most influential progressive leaders. She served on major denominational boards, mentored future bishops, and helped shape the direction of the church at a time when interfaith dialogue was becoming increasingly accepted.

The results became more visible in the decades that followed. Methodist publishing increasingly promoted the work of Jewish scholars such as Amy-Jill Levine, Rabbi Evan Moffic, and Dr. Marc Brettler. Through Abingdon Press, Bible studies written by these scholars found their way into thousands of Methodist churches. Their stated goals included “helping Christians read the Bible through a Jewish lens and encouraging improved Jewish-Christian understanding.” It makes absolutely no sense.

What's striking is that there is no mainstream organization devoted to helping Jews interpret the Tanakh (Old Testament) through a Christian lens while encouraging "Christian-Jewish understanding." The expectation almost always runs in the opposite direction.

Here is where I believe the church crossed an important line.

There is a profound difference between witnessing the gospel to our Jewish neighbors and inviting Jewish scholars who reject Jesus as the Messiah to become trusted voices in Christian discipleship. Christians are commanded to love all people. But love is not the same thing as theological partnership. And if you truly love someone who is lost, you should witness the gospel to them, not encourage them to remain comfortable in unbelief.

The New Testament repeatedly warns believers to guard doctrine and to test those who teach (Acts 17:11; 1 Timothy 4:16; Titus 1:9; 2 John 9–11). From my perspective, a church member can learn history from people of differing backgrounds, but it should receive biblical instruction about Christ from those who confess Christ.

For me, this is not ultimately about Amy-Jill Levine, Marc Brettler, Evan Moffic, or Rabbi Tanenbaum. It’s about the denomination's direction. Judith Craig inherited a church already moving toward ecumenical and interfaith engagement, but she became one of the leaders who helped make that direction part of the denomination’s culture.

The same is true of Rev. Dr. Robert W. Huston, whose leadership helped institutionalize ecumenical and interfaith engagement within the denomination, leaving a legacy that, in my opinion, continues to shape the United Methodist Church today.

This is one of the primary reasons much of the Methodist Church is in decline. When a church turns its back on God's Word and substitutes biblical conviction with theological compromise, there are consequences. Scripture warns that God honors those who honor Him, and no denomination is immune from the results of abandoning His truth.