Restart

Methodism and Exclusive Inclusivism

I have copied an article by Dr. Riley Case of the Confessing Movement and then added some comments at the end.

British Methodists and Inclusivism

By Dr. Riley Case

The Methodist Church of Great Britain voted this summer at its annual conference to prohibit any member of the political party, the British National Party (BNP), from joining any Methodist Church of Great Britain.   This normally might not be news deserving special mention, but it does raise an issue similar to that being discussed by United Methodists, namely: in a day when "inclusiveness" seems to be a new Christian value, should anyone for any reason be prohibited from Methodist Church membership?

Indeed, United Methodists in 2009 are voting on a constitutional amendment (#1) in their annual conferences which, if ratified, would inscribe as constitutional the principle that persons, regardless of what they believe, what they do, or who they are associated with--if they are willing to take the membership vows of the church-cannot be denied church membership.  This has been labeled the "inclusiveness" amendment, though it is also being called the "No Standards" amendment.

The UM proposed amendment came about because a pastor in Virginia delayed the membership of a practicing homosexual.  The bishop of Virginia demanded that the pastor receive the prospective member and when the pastor declined to do so, the bishop, with the help of the annual conference, had him removed from his pulpit.  The bishop argued that "inclusiveness" is the foundation of Methodism and persons cannot be denied membership.  When the Judicial Council sided with the pastor and against the bishop, the Council of Bishops entered the fray, speaking out against the Judicial Council and on behalf of the bishop, and followed this by making sure that any person on the Judicial Council who voted for the authority of the pastor, would not be nominated for reelection. 

Following this the "inclusiveness" constitutional amendment was presented to the General Conference, received the necessary two-thirds vote, and was sent to the annual conferences for ratification.  At the moment it appears the amendment will not be ratified.  

However, the issue of "inclusiveness" is still before the church.  At the heart of the argument against the concept of inclusiveness is the realization that total inclusiveness negates all standards.  To put any restrictions on membership is to be "exclusive," not "inclusive."  The Confessing Movement and others have argued that Methodism has always operated from standards, whether of doctrine or practice, and to do away with standards is not only a violation of the heart of Methodism, but of the tradition of the catholic church, and of Scripture itself. 

With this as background the British Methodist decision to ban membership to persons associated with BNP deserves comment. 

1) The British Methodists are to be commended for taking a stand on the principle that there are limits to the idea of inclusiveness.  The British National Party (BNP) opposes immigration, and claims to "defend Britain's Christian culture" against "Islamification" of Britain.  However, a number of people see it as a far-right party which would favor a kind of racist fascism.  This past summer it won two seats in the European Parliament.  British Methodists are saying that such blatant racism is a denial of the gospel and cannot be tolerated by the church.   Because this sort of racism is inconsistent with the gospel persons who belong to this political party will be banned from Methodist membership.  No words about diversity, inclusiveness, and "open hearts" and "open hands" and "open doors" here.  In the words of one blogger: An organized religion is organized around a common set of beliefs.  If such an organization were forced to accept all members regardless of belief, it would cease to exist.  
 
2) Having said this, it should be pointed out that there are serious questions about the wisdom of singling out a political party for membership banning.   The bloggers are pointing out the problems: 

"If Americans are to pick up on the British example, why not ban the Republicans since they too are racist?" 

"If we are in the business of banning racism, let's ban everybody since we are all guilty of subtle, if not blatant forms of racism?"  

"Is there a single example where someone in the BNP wants to become a Methodist?"

"BNP craziness deserves condemnation.  But should these churches focus on the BNP, whose appeal is fortunately almost microscopic, while remaining silent about far more potent threats to Britain, such as radical Islam?" 

Our denominational history serves up several serious problems relating to excluding groups of persons from membership.  It was controversies around slaveholders as church members that led to the split of the Northern and Southern churches in the 1840s.  It was controversies around the changing of a prohibition against membership for Masons that led to the United Brethren in Christ split in the 1880s.  

3) Something positive should be said about our own United Methodist tradition in regard to membership.  Article IV of the constitution is a good article because it indicates that classes or groups of persons,  whether race, color, national origin, status, or economic condition (the list should be considered as illustrative and not exhaustive) are eligible to attend and join United Methodist churches.  At the same time our tradition (supported by Judicial Council ruling 1032) invests responsibility with the pastor in instructing potential members in the meaning of the membership vows.  It further invests authority with the pastor in determining when persons are ready for membership.   
 
There are standards and there are beliefs.  They are important to us and we make them requirements for those wishing to be church members.  

COMMENTS:

Dr. Case is on target with his comments.  I researched the British National Party, and could find nothing official that would suggest blatant or overt racism.  I will defer to my British brothers and sisters, however, to understand the nuances of the political parties in their own country.  May I suggest, too, that there be an examination of the British Communist Party and the history of anti-semitism within the European communist movements.  Communists essentially equal opportunity murderers.  I look forward to a strong stand by the British Methodists against communism (I won’t hold my breath, however).

There is an urge within our denomination to welcome into membership any one at any time.  This loss of any sort of standards for membership is theologically vacuous, and removes all meaning from membership in the United Methodist connection.  Maybe we are losing members because membership means less and less.  We must remember that there is a difference between ministry for a person and membership in the Body of Christ.

There is confusion within my own conference with regard to race.  On the one hand we are to work for inclusiveness and integration or races and cultures, on the other hand we develop initiatives which create and encourage congregations that are separated by ethnicity, culture, and language. 

My activity within my conference’s Ethnic Local Church Concerns committee has been frustrating.  There is not even a clear definition of an “ethnic local church” or idea as to what the goal of the ELCC should be - integration or separate but equal.  The focus on specific ethnic and cultural groups excludes others.  Fortunately, the ELCC within my conference really does nothing except host an annual seminar and MLK celebration and have a booth and luncheon at annual conference.

By the way, what is it that determines if a church is an "ethnic local church?"  Is it a percentage of "ethnics?"  Just what is an "ethnic?"  By definition everyone is "ethnic."

I remember that for a report that asked the ethnic make-up of one of my congregation, I put 100% Native American.  That was the truth.  Everyone in that church was born in America!  Most were native Kentuckians!

My suggestion is that we quit grouping people as particular "ethnics."  When we stop focusing on skin color, and start focusing on souls, we as United Methodists may be blessed with growing churches again.  

The Bible Belt, Revivalism and Amendment #1

By Dr. Riley Case of the Confessing Movement

The September 22 issue of Christian Century carries an article entitled "Study Process Aided ELCA Gay Breakthrough," which basically analyzes why and how Lutherans came to the decision to approve practicing homosexuals as ministers.  United Methodists are mentioned in the article, mostly to make the point that UMs lag behind Lutherans (this is not an unbiased article).  The author notes that only 32% of UM pastors support ordination of practicing homosexuals compared to 54% of ELCA pastors.  Then this explanation is given: UMs are not likely to adopt inclusive policies soon primarily because of geography, with an explanatory quote from Troy Plummer (Reconciling Ministries): "United Methodist U.S. membership is concentrated in the Bible Belt."
 
Now the question: why is UM membership in America concentrated in the Bible Belt?  Is it just an accident or is there reason to believe that if there is such a thing as a Bible Belt in America Methodists (plus United Brethren and Evangelicals) had a part in making it that?  
 
Lutherans tend to be rather conservative theologically but it is not conservative theology that made the Bible Belt but rather revivalism (along with some other factors); Methodists (and Baptists) on the western frontier were the premier revivalists, and camp meetings the early setting.   The camp meeting as an institution can trace its origin to Cane Ridge in Kentucky in 1800.  It spread immediately across Methodism but especially, in the earliest years, to the Chesapeake Bay area (see Russell Richey, "The Formation of American Methodism: The Chesapeake Refraction of Wesleyanism" in Methodism and the Shaping of American Culture, Hatch and Wigger).  Richey argues that the Methodism of that area influenced the western states through migration.  Some in Indiana have contended that the "Hoosier" nickname (as in Indiana Hoosiers) was in fact derived from the early Indiana pioneers who were labeled "Hoosier" (in derision) because they were known as the converts of Methodism's black evangelist, Harry Hosier.
 
Meanwhile, Indiana (according to Asbury's journal) held 17 camp meetings in 1809 at a time when there was reportedly only one Methodist meetinghouse in the state.  A. H. Redford, in Western Cavaliers (1876) reports on 93 revivals that took place in Kentucky in the years 1832-1844.  When Christine Lieigh Heyrman did her study: Southern Cross The Beginnings of the Bible Belt (1997) she included Indiana, Ohio, and Illinois in her definition of "The South."  According to Heyrman, by 1835 48% of all Americans lived in her definition of the South, but 67% of all Baptists and Methodists.  
 
According to the 1850 federal census, the highest number of churches per capita in the country was found in the following states: Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Tennessee, and Mississippi.  These are the states (with several more) that were the market for the Western Christian Advocate of Cincinnati, which had the largest circulation in the nation among religious papers and one of the largest circulations of all papers.  One of its features was "Revival Intelligence."  It is worth noting that the geographic center of the states with the highest concentration of churches would be somewhere close to Cane Ridge, Kentucky. 
 
The same 1850 census shows Indiana with 454 Methodist churches, and only 2 congregational churches.  Clearly, the center of Christianity (and the beginnings of the Bible Belt) had moved west of the Allegany mountains.  It is not so much that the Bible Belt started in the south and moved north, but rather that the revival that is associated with Kentucky and the Chesapeake Bay area moved both south and north.  The Evangelical and United Brethren versions of the same frontier revival moved down the Ohio River valley.
 
What does all this have to do with Constitutional Amendment #1, the "inclusivity" amendment to the UM constitution?  This is the amendment which would mandate that anyone who wants to, regardless of what they believe or what is their moral code, can be a United Methodist church member (better labeled the "no standards" amendment).
 
Perhaps no other issue before the church has so clearly revealed the theological and cultural divide in United Methodism as in this amendment.  While the amendment was approved by the General Conference, supported by the bishops, and by various boards and agencies, and by all the liberal caucus groups, it has been overwhelmingly defeated by the annual conferences.  But it is significant which annual conferences voted against the amendment.  If a map of the conferences that failed to approve the amendment by even a simple majority (2/3 was needed to ratify) is overlaid on a map of where early Methodist revivalism flourished the greatest, and that overlaid with a map of what some consider today to be the "Bible Belt," the maps would match.
 
Not a single conference in the southeastern jurisdiction gave the amendment a majority.  In addition, 3 Texas conferences, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Peninsula-Delaware, West Virginia, Western PA, West Ohio, Indiana, and Great Rivers also did not give a majority vote to the amendment.
 
What is the significance of this?

1. We need a better appreciation for our own American United Methodist heritage and how it has helped to shape American culture and evangelicalism.
2. United Methodism is not nearly as liberal as portrayed by boards and agencies, and even by the council of bishops and the seminaries.   At one time New York and Boston claimed to be the center of Methodism.  That was a serious misreading of what Methodism really has been (and is).
3. When the University Senate de-lists schools from being approved to train UM pastors because the schools are evangelical and supposedly do not reflect "United Methodist ethos," the senate needs a history lesson as to just what United Methodist "ethos" is.  It has a lot to do with revivals and not much at all to do with modern expressions of "academic freedom."

Lutheran (ELCA) and Methodist (UMC) Merger - A Bright or Dim Future?

On August 21, 2009, an article entitled United Methodist, Lutherans Take Historic Step Forward, by Linda Bloom, a United Methodist News Service (UMNS) writer based in New York, appeared in the online edition of the UMNS.

Ms. Bloom reported on the agreement on full communion between the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America and the United Methodist Church.  The title of the article itself reveals an editorial bias on the part of Ms. Bloom.  She assumes that the agreement is indeed a step forward.  In addition, she suggests that the agreement is a step toward something.  Both are opinions.

I have no quarrel with communing with Lutherans.  Indeed, United Methodist communion is already fully open to Lutherans, other Christians, and even non-Christians.  It is certainly in the Spirit of John Wesley to seek fellowship and common cause with all Christians.

Still, why was this agreement necessary, unless it is an initial step toward merger of or union between the two denominations?

Allow me to reproduce some sections in Ms. Bloom's article to show that this is the direction toward which we are stepping.  The full article may be found at UNMS .  I shall provide quotations from her article with some comments from me inserted.  I shall also make some concluding comments.

Full communion means that each church acknowledges the other as a partner in the Christian faith, recognizes the authenticity of each other’s baptism and Eucharist, observes the validity of their respective ministries and is committed to working together toward greater unity.

Some church leaders were already looking forward to sharing clergy in under-served areas, expanding joint mission work and strengthening seminary offerings with the resources of their communion partners.

[Comment:  UMC leaders are leading in this direction not because of the strengths of each denomination, but because of weaknesses.  Both denominations are straining to develop young clergy and enough pastors for their respective churches.  United Methodists need to cut the number of seminaries.  UMC seminaries in general a losing touch with their traditional Wesleyan roots anyway.]

United Methodist and Evangelical Lutheran Church in America leaders expect by November to appoint members of a joint commission to implement the agreement. The commission’s work includes joint planning for mission, developing worship materials to celebrate full communion and developing guidelines on sharing clergy.

Practical applications of the new agreement include providing pastors together in areas that are under-served. Palmer said that he and the Lutheran bishop in his part of Illinois “are deeply interested in talking about what a cooperative parish ministry looks like.”

[Comment:  While there is no overt claim - other than the title - that there is more to come, the current agreement will touch missions, worship, clergy preparation (seminaries), and clergy assignment.  That sounds like merger to me.]

Let me conclude with some observations. 

First, I find it interesting that Ms. Bloom's article is that she provides quotations from five United Methodists - all are clergy (three bishops, one seminary professor, and one general board staffer).  Four of the five she quotes are female.  All whom she quotes are from the northern area of the church - Illinois, Minnesota, Montana, New York, and Ohio.

What happened to the celebrated UMC diversity?  If those whom Ms. Bloom quotes are representative of the leadership, I would suggest that the strength of the United Methodist Church is woefully misrepresented.  Where were the laity?  Where were the pastors (not administrators or professors, but real pastors)?  Where were the Southeast and Southwest Jurisdictions?   Where were the conservatives?  The conservative areas of the UMC and the areas that provide the greatest financial support, and the areas where membership is not decreasing at an alarming rate were not represented.

Second, reading between the lines of the article the agreement is a step toward addressing the weaknesses in both denominations - a diminishing voice and resources because of decreasing membership and decreasing number of clergy (especially younger clergy).

If the UMC is looking for Lutheran clergy to swell the number of clergy available for appointment, we will be disappointed.  Some of my wife's family are very active in an ELCA church near me.  They have been without a pastor for over 18 months.  By the way, they are doing very well.

Mergers, unions, or cooperative agreements that are produced out of weakness never create strength.  A strong institution that has a meaningful mission and is focused on that mission does not seek to merge or unite or agree to cooperate.  Only two weak entities will consider merging.  A merger will result in a weaker institution with a confused and unfocused mission.

I look at the merger that I have experienced in my service as a United Methodist pastor - the merger of the Louisville and Kentucky conferences.  The weaker of the two, I shall admit, was my conference (Louisville).  What has happened in the decade or so after merger?

• Membership continues to decline.
• Worship attendance continues to decline.
• Financial resources continue to decline.
• The number of clergy continues to decline.
• The number of staff has increased.
• The conference budget has increased.
• The amount of office space for the conference has increased.

Within the Louisville District a mega-merger was proposed within the last ten years.  Seventeen congregations - many of whom were struggling - were offered the opportunity to merge into one multi-campus, multi-staff church.  This proposal did not come from the churches, the pastors, the responsible committees, or the superintendent of the Louisville District; but from the staff of a conference agency located in Lexington.  Five congregations participated.  What has happened? 

• The Louisville District continues to decline in membership and worship attendance.
• The newly merged congregation's worship and membership is smaller than the five congregations that formed it.
• The newly merged congregation is now located in a suburban area.
• The Louisville District has diminished and declined in the area of highest percentage of ethnic minorities and and poverty.
• The Louisville District has become more suburban.
• There are fewer churches in the Louisville District.
• The staff person who proposed the mega-merger is now serving a mega-church in another conference.

Mergers do not work.  Mergers come from weakness and produce weakness.  Where is the United Methodist Church in Canada?  It does not exist.  It merged with other denominations to form the United Church of Canada.

Third, mergers do not address missional issues but institutional issues.  That is because mergers are institutional, not missional.  Mergers are initiated by institutional operatives (bureaucrats and administrators) to solve their problems or advance/enhance their careers/status (see above).  Mergers require institutions to focus energy and resources on the transformation of the institution, not the mission.  The only thing that grows in a merger is the bureaucracy or administrative staff.  Staff never consolidates; it only expands.  Institutional mission statements are maintained or reworded in merger; but the reality is that missional effort and focus in diminished.

Look at the merger of the Louisville and Kentucky conferences again.  Before the merger the two conference had one bishop and twelve districts with twelve superintendents, with staff located in Lexington and Louisville.  Today the merged conference has one bishop and twelve districts, but a much larger paid staff located in Lexington and Crestwood (Louisville).

Look at who are now perceived as leaders of the Kentucky conference.  As an indicator we should look at the clergy delegates to general and jurisdictional conferences.  Before the merger persons serving as pastors and superintendents were predominantly recognized as leaders in the conferences and elected as delegates from the conference.

After merger, conference staff has become more prevalent and gets more "air time" giving reports at annual conference.  The role of the pastor at annual conference has diminished.

In the 2008 delegations from the Kentucky Conference to the General Conference and the Southeast Jurisdictional Conference a dramatic shift from currently serving pastors/superintendents to retired clergy and/or conference staff who never served as a pastor in the conference or had not served as a pastor for many years.  43% of the delegates were active or retired conference staff.  Only 22% of the clergy delegation (3) were active and currently serving as a pastor.  One clergy member of the delegation was retired, did not even reside in Kentucky, and had never been the pastor of a church in Kentucky. 

Fourth, mergers never save what they are intended to save - money and the institution.  The financial demands of the merged entity increase.  Eventually the merged institution collapses.  The only things saved in a merger are the careers of bureaucrats who initiate the merger.

Three assumptions are made in mergers that are false at the time of the merger:

• The system is worth saving.  If the system is worth saving, then there is no need for merger.
• Merger strengthens mission.  Mission is sacrificed for the sake of merger.
• Bigger is better.  Actually, smaller institutions can react better to immediate missional needs.

The United Methodist Church needs to decide if it desires to continue toward merger with other denominations in the future.  From the way decisions are made, I will not have a seat at the table, but I will be banging on the glass door trying to be heard.

There should be one requirement for having a seat at the table.  The person should have successfully merged two adult Sunday School classes at his or her church.  If someone can do that SUCCESSFULLY they can unite two denominations.

Yours in Christ, John 

Diversity in the United Methodist Church - The Failure of Leadership Based on Quotas

By: Dr. Riley Case of the Confessing Movement

 

One of the more discouraging experiences of my ministry was serving on the Jurisdictional Nominating Committee several quadrennia ago.  We really didn't nominate.  We placed different sized pegs into different-sized peg holes.  Because there were limited slots on the various boards, conferences to be represented were chosen by lot.  But because of the quota system (it was a quota system whether called that or not)  our slots were defined by gender, race, age, or clergy-lay specifications.   So, for example, one of our nominees needed to be a male, Hispanic lay person.  The problem was that while our conference had gone through an elaborate nominating system and many persons were wanting to serve on a general board, none at the time was a male, Hispanic lay person.   Sitting at the same table with the Nominating Committee were representatives of various ethnic and age groups making sure the proper diversity and inclusiveness was achieved. 

 

Welcome to the world of diversity where what looks good is often more valued than what works, and where diversity is defined more in terms of gender, race, and age rather than diversity of experience, distribution of spiritual gifts, and inclusion of different theological perspectives.  
 
Methodism came rather late to the diversity scene.  Specifically, "diversity" came to United Methodism with the restructuring and the 1972 General Conference.  In the 1968-72 quadrennium, the Board of Education (the most powerful board in the church at that time) was composed of 39 members, 37 of whom were white male liberals.  Only 7 were pastors; 13 were associated with universities and seminaries (would that we had such interest from our universities and seminaries today).  Most of the rest were bishops and bureaucrats.  
 
During the period leading up the restructuring an effort was made to pour persons in to a cultural mold that might best be defined as educated, white, male, and liberal.  This was the old liberalism, well expressed by hymn 512 of the 1935 hymnal: "These things shall be, a loftier race than e'er the world hath known..."    Education, high principles, and eugenics would help to produce the "loftier race," with the implication that lesser races and types of persons were disdained.  Methodism at the time did not tolerate diversity, especially theological diversity.   Up until 1968 the Discipline mandated that only curriculum material officially approved was to be used in church schools; only hymn books officially approved were to be used in worship; only audio-visuals officially approved were to be shown in churches; only evangelists officially approved were to preach in churches; and only missionaries officially approved were to be supported by churches.
 
When Roy L. Smith, a leading figure in the church, wrote Why I Am a Methodist (1955) he spoke of "liberality of viewpoint" as a key feature of Methodism.  The church had achieved this "liberality of viewpoint," according to Smith, because Methodists had been educated with the "official" material in church school and because ministers were being trained with similar courses of instruction in the seminaries.   The "official" educational philosophy at the time declared that Old Testament Bible stories were not appropriate for elementary children, nor were images of Jesus on the cross (see Ethel Smither, The Use of the Bible with Children, 1937).   There was hardly any diversity involved in this system.  Evidently, Methodists were produced with "liberality of viewpoint" by being restricted to a one-size-fits-all educational system.
 
The Biblical argument for diversity flows from the idea that Christian faith transcends gender, age, race, economic status, or culture.   The Methodist message was always, "Christ died for all" (unlimited atonement); therefore, all can be saved. The gifts of the Spirit are not restricted to race, gender, economic status, or ethnic group.  When Francis Asbury made Harry Hosier, a black man, a key evangelist in early Methodism it was not to fill some diversity goal but rather because Harry Hoser had exceptional gifts. When Phoebe Palmer wrote her monumental Promise of the Spirit in the 1850s, making the case for women to speak in the church, it was not to advance some feminist agenda, but to advance the cause of Christ because Palmer knew that the church would be enriched by the spiritual gifts of women.
 
Diversity should never be seen as an end in itself, but only as a means to an end.  The end in this case should be that unreached people or cultural groups have the gospel preached to them, and that the church is built up. 
 
The old ideological liberalism can be accused of being racist, sexist, and elitist, and theologically restrictive, and needed to be discarded, but the question is whether the present emphasis on diversity and inclusiveness (as understood by present-day liberals) is not also defective.   A serious question to be asked is why, if by the second decade of the 1800s, African-American membership equaled 20% of the total of Methodism (even after the AME split), has the percentage since then steadily decreased until it is only about 4% of the total today.  And this after we have had energy and money poured into programs and advocacy groups to encourage African-American presence in the church.  Why is it, if we are so committed to diversity, that United Methodist membership is still basically white, elderly, and upper middle-class?  And why, if diversity is so highly valued, do our seminaries continue to be so biased against evangelical and charismatic theologies?
 
Is it time for another restructuring which will redefine diversity and inclusivity and direct the church on the path to winning the world for Jesus Christ?

The United Methodist Church: A House Divided?

By Dr. Riley Case, The Confessing Movement

Enough of the votes on the Constitutional Amendments have now been reported by the annual conferences so that it is possible to announce the results.  The Constitutional Amendments that deal with two issues of special interest to evangelicals have failed.   This is good news for those of us in The Confessing Movement.  It appears that the church will live to see another day.
 
The amendment that would change para. IV (inclusiveness) in the constitution has at this time not even received 50% of the vote.  It needed 66.7% of the vote to pass.  The amendments on the world-wide nature of the church that would have created Regional Conferences and thus segregated out overseas churches from considering issues relating only to the United States failed overwhelmingly, with somewhere around 40% of the vote (also needing 66.7% to be ratified).
 
Some in-depth analyses of the votes will be coming from several corners.  But here to start on this analysis are some preliminary thoughts.

We are a church deeply divided.  The amendment on inclusiveness was an unnecessary amendment.  It would have mandated inclusiveness, asserting that anyone who wanted to join a United Methodist Church could, and pastors, or anyone else for that matter, would have no say about whether persons were ready for membership, or upheld United Methodist standards in belief or practice.  Furthermore, since the amendment would be inscribed in the constitution, all manner of complications could result if a Judicial Council declared that the constitution negates standards, say, in regard to ordination.

Yet this amendment was supported by the General Conference, by the bishops (based on an earlier bishops' statement), by boards and agencies, by liberal annual conferences, and by many of the caucus groups.   It was opposed by the evangelical renewal groups and more conservative conferences.   The votes reveal a serious disconnect in the church.   That is to say, the bishops, the boards and agencies, the seminaries, the liberal conferences, and almost all the caucuses except for the evangelical groups, cannot command even a majority of the votes of the annual conferences.
 
This serious divide should be reason for some soul-searching.  There are two different understandings of the faith operating within United Methodism.  Is there a way to bridge the gap?
 
The seriousness of the divide is shown in the extremes that some conferences voted for or against Amendment I.  Memphis voted against the amendment 73%-27%, Alabama-West Florida voted against 80%-20%, and North Carolina voted against 77%-23%. On the other hand, Idaho-Oregon voted 95% to 5% and Desert Southwest 94%-6% for the amendment.  
 
It might be worth mentioning that the two Georgia conferences together have more members than the entire Western Jurisdiction.  It might also be worth noting that the Western Jurisdiction conferences are decreasing in membership at an alarming rate.  According to reports from the conferences, the conferences of the Western Jurisdiction lost 2.6% of their membership in 2009 and 5% of their worship attendance.  The denomination as a whole lost .8% of its membership in 2007.
 
The votes for the amendments that would have changed the constitution of the church to mandate Regional Conferences also divided by regions and by theology.   The plan came to the General Conference from the Council of Bishops and the Connectional Table and passed the General Conference with votes to spare.  The purpose of the amendments was to address a real problem in the church, namely, that much of what the General Conference does is so US-centric that overseas delegates have a difficult time relating to issues that relate specifically to US churches.  The proposed solution was to retain a General Conference which would deal with issues of a global nature, and "regional" conferences that would deal with issues that are regional in nature.
 
However, it appears that another agenda was also at play.  Like homosexuality.  Progressives are arguing these days that issues relating to homosexuality are culturally influenced and therefore these issues should be dealt with in the Regional Conferences and not in the General Conference.  To put it another way, if the Africans were removed from considerations about homosexuality in America, there might be enough progressive votes to change the church's stance.
 
There were other concerns as well.  Details about finances, levels of bureaucracy, and how practically the conferences would function were not yet worked out.  
 
For whatever reasons, the amendments failed.  Alabama-Florida voted against the amendments 95%-5% and Kentucky 92%-8%.  On the other hand, Idaho-Oregon voted for the amendments 95%-5%, and Yellowstone and Wyoming conferences 91%-9%.  
 
In these amendments, it will be interesting to see how the overseas conferences voted.  These votes have not yet been recorded.

Megachurch Trends

by Riley Case

A recent study by Scott Thumma of Hartford Institute for Religion Research and Warren Bird of Leadership Network examines in depth the extent of the megachurch movement and the kind of persons who are attracted to megachurches.  The report - "Not Who You Think They Are: The Real Story of People Who Attend America's Megachurches" - is based on data from a national survey that drew 24,900 responses from 12 carefully selected megachurches across the country. It is claimed to be the largest national representative study of megachurch attendees conducted by any researchers to date.

Thumma and Bird start out with examining how big the megachurch phenomenon is: at the present time more than 5 million worship each week in a megachurch, defined as a Protestant church with 2,000 or more weekly attendees (since most are not denominational churches very few of these people are included in the NCC Yearbook figures).  And, it might be added, the 2,000 or more in attendance leaves out huge numbers of growing independent churches with attendance from 1,000 to 2,000 each week.   If these are added the church situation in America brightens even more.

A great concern of United Methodists and many other denominations is the lack of young adults and singles in regular churches.  In the megachurches a majority of the attendees (62 percent) are under the age of 45.  In the typical congregation about one-third (36%) are in the 18-44 age group (United Methodist figures are even lower). 

The singles and unmarried figures are even more dramatic.  Nearly a third of the megachurch attendees are single compared to just 10 percent of a typical congregation.  Eighty percent of those in a typical congregation are either married or widowed.  Megachurches also tend to draw in more new people compared to the typical church.  Over two-thirds (68 percent) of megachurch attendees have been in the church five years or less while in a typical congregation only 40 percent joined the church recently.

Megachurches by themselves are not the answer to the declining membership of institutional denominations.  Most American church adherents will never step inside a megachurch.  The majority of United Methodists, for instance, come to Christ and are nurtured in churches with under 150 in attendance.

Comment:  I would suggest that there are two trends developing in church growth - the megachurch (or as I call it, the heavy church); and the microchurch (light church).  The idea of heavy and light does not reflect theological depth, but "footprint" (building, staff, etc).  Megachurches are growing, but so are microchurches - in homes, on the internet, at work, etc.  The United Methodist Church has a mechanism for such micromovements called the circuit rider. - John Slider

But it is time to temper the cynicism often found in, for example, mainline seminaries, about the effectiveness of megachurches and their influence for good in America.   Seminaries, and particularly the liberal seminaries (which would include almost all of the United Methodist seminaries), are bound to academic institutional models of education that tend to stifle creativity and risk-taking.   And this is to say nothing about doctrine.   While megachurches are sometimes accused of theological shallowness, almost all megachurches are at least basically evangelical in their understanding of the faith.   What is proclaimed is understandable, and has the power to change lives.  

Examining what attracts people to megachurches, the Thumma and Bird survey found that the worship style, senior pastor, and reputation of the church, respectively, were the strongest factors in initial attraction.  Those three items were also most influential in having people stay. The senior pastor, however, proved to be the strongest factor that kept people coming back.

A number of UM bishops have indicated that despite the economic turn-down, their areas are still committed to new church starts.   Can we work, intentionally, to grow some of these new church starts into megachurches?  Can we commit ourselves to long-term pastorates?  Can we appoint pastors to these churches who on the one hand are creative risk-takers, yet committed to the evangelical message that can change lives?  If so there is still hope for United Methodism.

Church Membership and Activity Trends

by Dr. Riley Case

For those who track church trends in America there is good news and bad news.  The bad news is that denominational church membership was down in 2008 according to the statistics printed in the 2008 Yearbook of American & Canadian Churches published by the National Council of Churches.  Even the Southern Baptists (-.24%), the Roman Catholics (-.59%), and the Missouri Synod Lutherans (-1.44%)-groups that have grown in recent times--reported membership losses.  

If the United Methodists need a bit of encouragement, it is that UMs lost members at a slower rate (-.80%) than other mainline denominations.  The Presbyterian Church USA is down 2.79%, and the Episcopalians down 1.76%.  The United Church of Christ (UCC), the most liberal of the Protestant mainline churches, is self-destructing with a loss of 6.1%.  The UCCs, it should be pointed out, present themselves as diverse and open and accepting with few requirements for membership (a direction some United Methodists would like for the UMs to follow).   Can we agree that the liberal presentation of diversity for diversity's sake is not a compelling message that changes lives and attracts members?

The only major denominations showing church growth are the Assemblies of God (up .96%) and the Church of God Cleveland (up 2.04%).  It might be noted that both are Pentecostal bodies.  

If this is the bad news, what is the good news?  Overall, church membership reported in the 2008 Yearbook stands at 146 million in America, with about 164 million adherents.   It is significant to note that about 50% of the American population is affiliated with churches that are reported in the yearbook.  Whether or not the United States is a Christian nation can be debated.   But whether one argues one way or the other, any discussion about America as a Christian nation must start with the recognition of the church affiliation of a large portion of America's population, compared with other nations.

But after reporting these figures the yearbook goes on to make the point that not all the church bodies report their statistics to the National Council of Churches.  Many independent churches and megachurches are among those not reporting.  When one factors in these churches the church situation in America is much more promising.

Western Civilization, Missions, and Methodism

The Church of Scotland's World Mission Council has declared that the Western world needs to be converted amid a "recession" in Christianity.  The Council notes that while Christianity is flourishing in African countries the church in Europe is suffering from a slump that is "unprecedented in its extent and severity."  The Council further notes a "Great Reversal" in the direction of world mission: instead of European Christians seeing Africa and Asia as mission fields needing the gospel, it is now the African and Asian countries which see Europe as a mission field.  The report comes nearly 100 years after the great Edinburgh International Missionary Council held in 1910 at which 1,200 American and Northern European Protestants strategized for winning the world for Christ. 
 
The 1910 Edinburgh Missionary Council may have been the high marker for Protestant optimism and influence in the world.  That optimism was dampened and then dashed first by World War I, then by the rise of Communism, and then by radical changes in Protestantism brought about by modernism.  This was reflected in mission philosophy following the influential report, Re-Thinking Missions, issued in 1932.  Funded primarily by John D. Rockefeller, the benefactor of theological modernism, the  report concluded that Christianity had no claim on exclusive truth, that no true seeker of any religion would be damned, and that science and other modern disciplines could better do the job of bringing about the betterment of society, than missions.
 
The report was widely heralded and brought about changes in mission philosophy in Europe and especially in Congregationalism and Presbyterianism in America (and was the major factor in the defrocking of Gresham Machen in the Presbyterian Church, the upheaval at Princeton Seminary, and the founding of Westminister Seminary).
 
The ensuing reaction on the part of evangelical churches contributed to the forming of numbers of independent mission boards and the rise of Pentecostalism.  Methodism, for its part, continued to be a haven for evangelical missionaries until the 1960s when liberation theology began to dominate the Board of Missions, and decimate the missionary force.  From 1969 to 1975, the number of overseas missionaries associated with the Department of Overseas Mission (DOM) of the National Council of Churches decreased 31 percent (8,000 to 5,000).  The slack was taken up by Southern Baptists and the myriads of independent mission agencies.  The result was the rise of evangelical Christianity in the southern hemisphere and forms of indigenous Christianity not always within the orbit of Western civilization.  Now, it appears the future of Christianity lies outside Europe and North America.
 
What then of Christianity in Europe and North America?  The Church of Scotland report comes thirteen years after Samuel P. Huntington's much-discussed work, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (1996), in which Huntington argues, among other things, that Western civilization has entered a period of decay and decline, helped along in part by a multiculturalism (a Western phenomenon actually) which undercuts the uniqueness of Western civilization by assuming a moral parity between cultures and civilizations, and basically devalues long-standing Western values.  Huntington suggests, but does not argue, that a major component in that devaluation is the modern desire to separate Western civilization from its Christian roots.
 
The liberal blog AlterNet gloats in a May 5 posting that there are now 40 million non-believers in America, making secularism one of the fastest growing American minorities.  The posting generated 344 responses; almost all of them celebrating what they feel is the decline of American Christianity.  
 
How to sort this out?  First of all, AlterNet is hardly an unbiased observer of the religious scene.  Still, Christians, and especially evangelicals, have reason for concern that the Christian basis for Western civilization is under serious attack.  United Methodism's forty-year membership decline can be explained in part by compromises with secularism in every area of the church's life.  The push to change the constitution by amending Para. IV (Inclusiveness of the Church) to remove any standards for membership is an indication of this.  A church without standards would be little more than a service club or a social agency.
 
In addition, the proposal to separate the North American church from the overseas churches through the Regional Conference plan (also a constitutional amendment to be voted on by annual conferences) has serious implications for the global nature of United Methodism.  The Regional Conference philosophy that Africans should have an African church and Americans an American church undermines the concept of the church universal not bound by culture.    
 
It is the Confessing Movement's contention that the church of Jesus Christ must stand firmly upon the confession of Jesus Christ as Lord.  We work not on behalf of Western Civilization, and especially not for a Western Civilization wanting to separate itself from its Christian roots, but for a church that transcends cultures and brings hope to the world.

by Dr. Riley Case

Problems with New Church Starts in the United Methodist Church

By Dr. Riley Case

The official church press is not generally prone to investigative reporting, especially if it might negatively affect the denomination's image. The United Methodist Reporter, however, with a bit more freedom, has been willing to examine seriously a story that has implications for whether the United Methodist Church can sustain its strategy for reversing its membership decline through bold church starts.

On March 1, pastor Bryson Butts, along with the staff and almost the entire congregation, left GracePoint United Methodist Church in Wichita, Kansas, to form a nondemoninational church (see the Reporter, May 1 and 8).

GracePoint was one of the success stories of the United Methodist effort to revitalize the denomination by new church starts. Started five years ago by the Kansas West Conference, the church had grown to a congregation of 700. The church was recognized by the conference for its evangelism success, which involved edgy billboard advertising and secular music in its worship services. Its goal was to reach the kind of hurting people other churches were not reaching.

But the church ran into problems, not so much from the bishop and cabinet as from other UM pastors and churches, who questioned whether the church's advertising and actions affected negatively the image of United Methodism. More seriously, the church was creating ministries that seemed to overlap the ministries of other churches, and establishing satellite worship centers in an East Wichita area that already had 13 UM churches. Criticism, charges and counter-charges, and misunderstandings led to the frustration that triggered the exit. The United Methodist Reporter then asks the question: "does the United Methodist Church hinder or help entrepreneurial pastors fulfill their vision?"

Unfortunately, GracePoint is not an isolated incidence. Some years ago Mt. Auburn UM Church in Indianapolis had grown to a congregation of 1,800 and wanted to expand. When it met resistence, not only from other churches but from the superintendent and the district building committee, the pastor, Joel Hunter, left the denomination and started a Northland Church in Longwood, Florida, now a congregation of 12,000 members. Other situations are not as dramatic as those of Joel Hunter or Bryson Butts, but unfortunate similar stories (almost none of which are reported) are too numerous to ignore.

United Methodism wants very much to reverse its 40-year membership decline, and a number in the denomination have realized one key in the reversal is entrepreneurial leadership and new church starts. But can this kind of leadership work be effective given the present state of United Methodist institutionalism?

Let us hope for informed discussion around these matters. For the moment the following observations are in order.

1. The GracePoint story must not be allowed to dampen the church's commitment to entrepreneurial leadership in the establishing of new churches. The natural tendency following a GracePoint event is for bishops, cabinets, and conference leadership to instigate tighter controls on new church starts, to send out messages about denominational loyalty, and to denounce "Lone Rangers." Very infrequently in these situations do we get soul-searching about how our own institutionalism might add to the problems. Boards of Ordained Ministry are already notorious for their discouraging of maverick but gifted candidates in favor of lackluster candidates who fit the institutional mold. United Methodism may be known for liberal social stances, but institutionally, it is a very conservative denomination not known for the encouragement of risk-taking. This is not the time for retreat into an institutional shell.

2. We do not grow churches by stifling competition and by drawing walls of protection about what is called "parish boundaries." Some of us have tried for years (unsuccessfully) to change para. 341.1-4 of the Discipline (Unauthorized Conduct), which says, among other things, that pastors shall not hold religious services within the bounds of another pastoral change without permission. The origins of this section date back to more than 100 years ago when the church sought to control, if not purge, holiness evangelists and holiness teachings from its midst (which it did rather successfully and thus we lost the poor who were much more susceptible to Holiness teaching). We forgot that John Wesley himself uttered "The world is my parish" in response to charges he was preaching where he was not supposed to preach. In this day of regional churches, ethnic churches and special niche churches, the concept of "pastoral charge boundaries" makes no sense.

There are signs this might be changing. In Roanoke, Indiana, with two United Methodist Churches in a town of 1,500, a neighboring church has started (with cabinet blessing) a satellite worship center. In Dunkirk, Indiana, in a town of 2,600, with three United Methodist Churches, a neighboring church is wanting to start a satellite center. How can this be justified? It is justified if existing churches receive no professions of faith for years in a row, and appear to have no interest in reaching the lost in their midst.

3. Church growth when (or if) it comes will be messy. A commitment to growth will involve the kind of radical change that many congregations are not willing to make, or tolerate. That is one reason why it is easier to grow a new church than to revitalize an existing church. But church growth also might mean radical change for conferences and for our corporate culture. Persons newly converted, or persons with other-denomination background (the kind of people that often make up megachurches or new-church starts), are not always going to understand United Methodism's way of speaking and doing. Yet these are the very people, if they are encouraged and not criticized, that can bring revitalization to the denomination.

From a denominational point of view, GracePoint is a tragic story. But perhaps it can be an opportunity for further discussion about how to make United Methodism a vital force in American life once again. Core beliefs are important.

Churches and Swimmers

I used to coach high school swimming.  A good analogy for understanding how churches progress is to understand the three different "media" swimmers experience.

Swimmers in competition experience (travel through) three different media.  When a swimmer starts a race he or she dives from the blocks, and flys through the air momentarily.  This is the part of the race where there is the least resistance to the swimmer.  He or she is expending very little energy - or exerting very little control over the medium (air).  Gravity is the primary force at work, and it eventually will pull the swimmer down.

After the initial "air time" a swimmer dives completely under the surface of the water and travels totally submerged in the medium of the water.  A little more energy is required and a little more control can be exerted by the swimmer over this medium.  A swimmer, however, can stay in this medium so long and needs to come to the surface.

It is on the surface where the swimmer must spend most of his or her time, where the most control can be exerted, and the most progress made; but because of the surface tension of the water, this is where the most resistance is to the swimmer's progress.

Churches are like swimmers.

A church can be traveling through one of three media - decline, stagnation, or progress.  Decline for a church is like a swimmer flying through the air at the start of the race.  It takes very little effort, but it also allows for very little control.  The ultimate direction is downward.

Stagnation for a church is like swimming completely in the medium of water.  It takes a little more effort than traveling through the air (decline).  A little more control can be exerted and more energy is expended.  The hardest task is to stay at the same depth and make progress. 

A church can stagnate as well.  It takes some effort to stay at the same depth and make progress; but eventually a church, like a swimmer will either choose to rise to the surface or stay under water and die.

The third medium for a church is to travel on the surface like a swimmer.  That is really the only place a swimmer - and a church - can survive and make progress.  That is where the air is!  It is also where most of the control can be exerted.

Do you know something?  Most of the media of greatest resistence for a swimmer is where the most progress is made in the race - on the surface!  A church that chooses to progress will encounter resistance - from forces outside the church and from forces that sneak into the church family.

Progress for a church means traveling the path of greatest resistence.  Following Jesus for a person means traveling the path of greatest resistence.  The path of progress, the path of following Jesus in life, is the only path of life for a church and for a person.