Restart

United Methodist and other Mainline Denominations Diminish Ties with Growing Evangelical Movements

Persons who observe the progress of Christianity in America and around the world should be encouraged by the reports coming out of the Urbana 09 (called Urbana because for years the conference met in Urbana) Missionary Conference, the triennial conference sponsored by InterVarsity Christian Fellowship which concluded on New Year's Eve, 2009, in St. Louis. 

The first of the InterVarsity missionary conferences was held in 1946 for 575 registrants and was opened by Dr. Harold Ockenga, the evangelical leader who founded the National Association of Evangelicals and coined the word "neo-evangelical."   By 1955 (when I attended) the conference registered 5,000 persons.  What I personally remember about that conference was the amazement on the part of participants that there were as many as 5,000 students from college campuses committed to changing the world for Christ, and the tremendous sense of energy and unity that came when like-minded people were committed to the cause of Christ.  (I also remember the singing, especially a favorite of the conference, Charles Wesley's "And Can It Be" sung to Sagina, a hymn and tune that would eventually make its way into the United Methodist Hymnal.)

I also remember from 1955 that the Board of Missions of The Methodist Church was very visible and active in recruitment of persons for service in the Methodist Church.  The board at that time was recruiting evangelical students as missionaries.

The world has changed quite a bit since 1955.  For one thing, mainline churches have been in steep decline.   Related to this, due in large part to the upheavals in the 1960s, The United Methodist Church has a much different mission philosophy.  The Methodist Church in 1955 had nearly 1,800 overseas full-time missionaries on the field.  The General Board of Global Ministries (GBGM, the successor to the Board of Missions) now has fewer than 200 full-time overseas missionaries in service.   A serious question would be: if the GBGM sought to recruit new missionaries for service, what would they recruit them for, and would there be any reasonable expectation that new persons would be used, especially if they were evangelical in theology?

In addition, The United Methodist Church reflects an aging membership.   Calls of alarm are going out because of the lack of young pastors going into the ministry.

By way of contrast InterVarsity (and we could also discuss other evangelical campus groups like Campus Crusade) is in the midst of the greatest evangelistic harvest in its history.   850 campus groups reach out to non-believing students and faculty, develop new leaders, and equip graduates to pursue God's purposes in the world.  One hundred new campus groups are being planted to reach new student groups.

InterVarsity  seeks to work in cooperation with other parachurch groups and other denominations.  In the light of this nearly 150 mission agencies and educational institutions exhibited at Urbana 09.  However, The United Methodist Church was conspicuous by its near-absence.  Numbers of evangelical seminaries recruited students at Urbana, but few mainline seminaries.  One has the feeling that United Methodist seminaries either are not aware of conferences like Urbana 09, or are not interested in pursuing evangelicals as students.  That is most unfortunate, because The United Methodist Church could benefit from the commitment and enthusiasm that comes out of conferences like Urbana.

Of the 16,000 registrants at this year's Urbana, 2,610 committed themselves to long-term missionary service.  Another 5,000 committed themselves to short-time service.   While The United Methodist Church organizes agencies and plans programs to promote diversity (quite unsuccessfully it would seem since only about 6% of American United Methodism would be classified as a racial minority) groups like InterVarsity reflect diversity.  About 40% of the Urbana 09 participants would be considered part of a racial minority.  InterVarsity overall claims that 40% of its student participants are from one of the minority groups.  Attendees heard speakers from a variety of cultural contexts discuss how God is at work in their world and what are the needs that still remain.  The worship experiences were among the most diverse in terms of style of worship gatherings in North America.

It has been the contention of groups like The Confessing Movement that our United Methodist Church needs to tap into the spiritual energy generated by evangelicals, both within the denomination and without.  This is still one of the challenges before us as a denomination.

by Dr. Riley Case, the Confessing Movement

"The Almost Christian" - a Sermon by John Wesley

“Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.” - Acts 26.28

AND many there are who go thus far: ever since the Christian religion was in the world, there have been many in every age and nation who were almost persuaded to be Christians. But seeing it avails nothing before God to go only thus far, it highly imports us to consider,

First. What is implied in being almost,

Secondly. What in being altogether, a Christian.

I. (I.) 1. Now, in the being almost a Christian is implied, First, heathen honesty. No one, I suppose, will make any question of this; especially, since by heathen honesty here, I mean, not that which is recommended in the writings of their philosophers only, but such as the common heathens expected one of another, and many of them actually practised. By the rules of this they were taught that they ought not to be unjust; not to take away their neighbour’s goods, either by robbery or theft; not to oppress the poor, neither to use extortion toward any; not to cheat or overreach either the poor or rich, in whatsoever commerce they had with them; to defraud no man of his right; and, if it were possible, to owe no man anything.

2. Again: the common heathens allowed, that some regard was to be paid to truth, as well as to justice. And, accordingly, they not only held him in abomination who was forsworn, who called God to witness to a lie; but him also who was known to be a slanderer of his neighbour, who falsely accused any man. And indeed, little better did they esteem wilful liars of any sort, accounting them the disgrace of human kind, and the pests of society.

3. Yet again: there was a sort of love and assistance which they expected one from another. They expected whatever assistance any one could give another, without prejudice to himself. And this they extended not only to those little offices of humanity which are performed without any expense or labour, but likewise to the feeding the hungry, if they had food to spare; the clothing the naked with their own superfluous raiment; and, in general. the giving, to any that needed, such things as they needed not themselves. Thus far, in the lowest account of it, heathen honesty went; the first thing implied in the being almost a Christian.

(II.) 4. A second thing implied in the being almost a Christian, is, the having a form of godliness; of that godliness which is prescribed in the gospel of Christ; the having the outside of a real Christian. Accordingly, the almost Christian does nothing which the gospel forbids. he taketh not the name of God in vain; he blesseth, and curseth not; he sweareth not at all, but his communication is, yea, yea; nay, nay. he profanes not the day of the Lord, nor suffers it to be profaned, even by the stranger that is within his gates. he not only avoids all actual adultery, fornication, and uncleanness, but every word or look that either directly or indirectly tends thereto; nay, and all idle words, abstaining both from detraction, backbiting, talebearing, evil speaking, and from “all foolish talking and jesting”— eutrapelia, a kind of virtue in the heathen moralist’s account;—briefly, from all conversation that is not “good to the use of edifying,” and that, consequently, “grieves the Holy Spirit of God, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption.”

5. He abstains from “wine wherein is excess”; from revellings and gluttony. He avoids, as much as in him lies, all strife and contention, continually endeavouring to live peaceably with all men. And, if he suffer wrong, he avengeth not himself, neither returns evil for evil. he is no railer, no brawler, no scoffer, either at the faults or infirmities of his neighbour. he does not willingly wrong, hurt, or grieve any man; but in all things act and speaks by that plain rule, “Whatsoever thou wouldest not he should do unto thee, that do not thou to another.”

6. And in doing good, he does not confine himself to cheap and easy offices of kindness, but labours and suffers for the profit of many, that by all means he may help some. In spite of toil or pain, “whatsoever his hand findeth to do, he doeth it with his might;” whether it be for his friends, or for his enemies; for the evil, or for the good. For being “not slothful” in this, or in any “business,” as he “hath opportunity” he doeth “good,” all manner of good, “to all men;” and to their souls as well as their bodies. he reproves the wicked, instructs the ignorant, confirms the wavering, quickens the good, and comforts the afflicted. he labours to awaken those that sleep; to lead those whom God hath already awakened to the “Fountain opened for sin and for uncleanness,” that they may wash therein and be clean; and to stir up those who are saved through faith, to adorn the gospel of Christ in all things.

7. he that hath the form of godliness uses also the means of grace; yea, all of them, and at all opportunities. he constantly frequents the house of God; and that, not as the manner of some is, who come into the presence of the Most High, either loaded with gold and costly apparel, or in all the gaudy vanity of dress, and either by their unseasonable civilities to each other, or the impertinent gaiety of their behaviour, disclaim all pretensions to the form as well as to the power of godliness. Would to God there were none even among ourselves who fall under the same condemnation! who come into this house, it may be, gazing about, or with all the signs of the most listless, careless indifference, though sometimes they may seem to use a prayer to God for his blessing on what they are entering upon; who, during that awful service, are either asleep, or reclined in the most convenient posture for it; or, as though they supposed God was asleep, talking with one another, or looking round, as utterly void of employment. Neither let these be accused of the form of godliness. No; he who has even this, behaves with seriousness and attention, in every part of that solemn service. More especially, when he approaches the table of the Lord, it is not with a light or careless behaviour, but with an air, gesture, and deportment which speaks nothing else but “God be merciful to me a sinner!”

8. To this, if we add the constant use of family prayer, by those who are masters of families, and the setting times apart for private addresses to God, with a daily seriousness of behaviour; he who uniformly practises this outward religion, has the form of godliness. There needs but one thing more in order to his being almost a Christian, and that is, sincerity.

(III.) 9. By sincerity I mean, a real, inward principle of religion, from whence these outward actions flow. And, indeed if we have not this, we have not heathen honesty; no, not so much of it as will answer the demand of a heathen Epicurean poet. Even this poor wretch, in his sober intervals, is able to testify, Oderunt peccare boni, virtutis amore; oderunt peccare mali, formidine poenae.  (Good men avoid sin from the love of virtue; wicked me avoid sin from a fear of punishment)

So that, if a man only abstains from doing evil in order to avoid punishment, Non pasces in cruce corvos, (Thou shalt not be hanged), saith the Pagan; there, “thou hast thy reward.” But even he will not allow such a harmless man as this to be so much as a good heathen. If, then, any man, from the same motive, viz., to avoid punishment, to avoid the loss of his friends, or his gain, or his reputation, should not only abstain from doing evil, but also do ever so much good; yea, and use all the means of grace; yet we could not with any propriety say, this man is even almost a Christian. If he has no better principle in his heart, he is only a hypocrite altogether.

10. Sincerity, therefore, is necessarily implied in the being almost a Christian; a real design to serve God, a hearty desire to do his will. It is necessarily implied, that a man have a sincere view of pleasing God in all things; in all his conversation; in all his actions; in all he does or leaves undone. This design, if any man be almost a Christian, runs through the whole tenor of his life. This is the moving principle, both in his doing good, his abstaining from evil, and his using the ordinances of God.

11. But here it will probably be inquired, “Is it possible that any man living should go so far as this, and, nevertheless, be only almost a Christian”? What more than this, can be implied in the being a Christian altogether? I answer, First, that it is possible to go thus far, and yet be but almost a Christian, I learn, not only from the oracles of God, but also from the sure testimony of experience.

12. Brethren, great is “my boldness towards you in this behalf.” And “forgive me this wrong,” if I declare my own folly upon the house-top, for yours and the gospel’s sake. —Suffer me, then, to speak freely of myself, even as of another man. I am content to be abased, so ye may be exalted, and to be yet more vile for the glory of my Lord.

13. I did go thus far for many years, as many of this place can testify; using diligence to eschew all evil, and to have a conscience void of offence; redeeming the time; buying up every opportunity of doing all good to all men; constantly and carefully using all the public and all the private means of grace; endeavouring after a steady seriousness of behaviour, at all times, and in all places; and, God is my record, before whom I stand, doing all this in sincerity; having a real design to serve God; a hearty desire to do his will in all things; to please him who had called me to “fight the good fight,” and to “lay hold of eternal life.” Yet my own conscience beareth me witness in the Holy Ghost, that all this time I was but almost a Christian.

II. If it be inquired, “What more than this is implied in the being altogether a Christian?” I answer,

(I.) 1. First. The love of God. For thus saith his word, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength.” Such a love is this, as engrosses the whole heart, as rakes up all the affections, as fills the entire capacity of the soul and employs the utmost extent of all its faculties. he that thus loves the Lord his God, his spirit continually “rejoiceth in God his Saviour.” his delight is in the Lord, his Lord and his All, to whom “in everything he giveth thanks. All his desire is unto God, and to the remembrance of his name.” his heart is ever crying out, “Whom have I in heaven but Thee? and there is none upon earth that I desire beside Thee.” Indeed, what can he desire beside God? Not the world, or the things of the world: for he is “crucified to the world, and the world crucified to him.” he is crucified to “the desire of the flesh, the desire of the eye, and the pride of life.” Yea, he is dead to pride of every kind: for “love is not puffed up” but “he that dwelling in love, dwelleth in God, and God in him,” is less than nothing in his own eyes.

(II.) 2. The Second thing implied in the being altogether a Christian is, the love of our neighbour. For thus said our Lord in the following words, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” If any man ask, “Who is my neighbour?” we reply, Every man in the world; every child of his who is the Father of the spirits of all flesh. Nor may we in any wise except our enemies or the enemies of God and their own souls. But every Christian loveth these also as himself, yea, “as Christ loved us.” he that would more fully understand what manner of love this is, may consider St. Paul’s description of it. It is “long-suffering and kind.” It “envieth not.” It is not rash or hasty in judging. It “is not puffed up;” but maketh him that loves, the least, the servant of all. Love “doth not behave itself unseemly,” but becometh “all things to all men.” She “seeketh not her own;” but only the good of others, that they may be saved. “Love is not provoked.” It casteth out wrath, which he who hath is wanting in love. “It thinketh no evil. It rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth. It covereth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.”

(III.) 3. There is yet one thing more that may be separately considered, though it cannot actually be separate from the preceding, which is implied in the being altogether a Christian; and that is the ground of all, even faith. Very excellent things are spoken of this throughout the oracles of God. “Every one,” saith the beloved disciple, “that believeth is born of God.” “To as many as received him, gave he power to become the sons of God. even to them that believe on his name.” And “this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.” Yea, our Lord himself declares, “He that believeth in the Son hath everlasting life; and cometh not into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life.”

4. But here let no man deceive his own soul. “It is diligently to be noted, the faith which bringeth not forth repentance, and love, and all good works, is not that right living faith, but a dead and devilish one. For, even the devils believe that Christ was born of a virgin: that he wrought all kinds of miracles, declaring himself very God: that, for our sakes, he suffered a most painful death, to redeem us from death everlasting; that he rose again the third day: that he ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father and at the end of the world shall come again to judge both the quick and dead. These articles of our faith the devils believe, and so they believe all that is written in the Old and New Testament. And yet for all this faith, they be but devils. They remain still in their damnable estate lacking the very true Christian faith.”

5. “The right and true Christian faith is” (to go on the words of our own Church), “not only to believe that Holy Scripture and the Articles of our Faith are true, but also to have a sure trust and confidence to be saved from everlasting damnation by Christ. It is a sure trust and confidence which a man hath in God, that, by the merits of Christ, his sins are forgiven, and he reconciled to the favour of God; whereof doth follow a loving heart, to obey his commandments.”

6. Now, whosoever has this faith, which “purifies the heart” (by the power of God, who dwelleth therein) from “pride, anger, desire, from all unrighteousness” from “all filthiness of flesh and spirit;” which fills it with love stronger than death, both to God and to all mankind; love that doeth the works of God, glorying to spend and to be spent for all men, and that endureth with joy, not only the reproach of Christ, the being mocked, despised, and hated of all men, but whatsoever the wisdom of God permits the malice of men or devils to inflict,—whosoever has this faith thus working by love is not almost only, but altogether, a Christian.

7. But who are the living witnesses of these things? I beseech you, brethren, as in the presence of that God before whom “hell and destruction are without a covering—how much more the hearts of the children of men?”—that each of you would ask his own heart, “Am I of that number? Do I so far practise justice, mercy, and truth, as even the rules of heathen honesty require? If so, have I the very outside of a Christian? the form of godliness? Do I abstain from evil,—from whatsoever is forbidden in the written Word of God? Do I, whatever good my hand findeth to do, do it with my might? Do I seriously use all the ordinances of God at all opportunities? And is all this done with a sincere design and desire to please God in all things?”

8. Are not many of you conscious, that you never came thus far; that you have not been even almost a Christian; that you have not come up to the standard of heathen honesty; at least, not to the form of Christian godliness?—much less hath God seen sincerity in you, a real design of pleasing him in all things. You never so much as intended to devote all your words and works. your business, studies, diversions, to his glory. You never even designed or desired, that whatsoever you did should be done “in the name of the Lord Jesus,” and as such should be “a spiritual sacrifice, acceptable to God through Christ.”

9. But, supposing you had, do good designs and good desires make a Christian? By no means, unless they are brought to good effect. “Hell is paved,” saith one, “with good intentions.” The great question of all, then, still remains. Is the love of God shed abroad in your heart? Can you cry out, “My God, and my All”? Do you desire nothing but him? Are you happy in God? Is he your glory, your delight, your crown of rejoicing? And is this commandment written in your heart, “That he who loveth God love his brother also”? Do you then love your neighbour as yourself? Do you love every man, even your enemies, even the enemies of God, as your own soul? as Christ loved you? Yea, dost thou believe that Christ loved thee, and gave himself for thee? Hast thou faith in his blood? Believest thou the Lamb of God hath taken away thy sins, and cast them as a stone into the depth of the sea? that he hath blotted out the handwriting that was against thee, taking it out of the way, nailing it to his cross? Hast thou indeed redemption through his blood, even the remission of thy sins? And doth his Spirit bear witness with thy spirit, that thou art a child of God?

10. The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who now standeth in the midst of us, knoweth, that if any man die without this faith and this love, good it were for him that he had never been born. Awake, then, thou that sleepest, and call upon thy God: call in the day when he may be found. Let him not rest, till he make his “goodness to pass before thee;” till he proclaim unto thee the name of the Lord, “The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity, and transgression, and sin.” Let no man persuade thee, by vain words, to rest short of this prize of thy high calling. But cry unto him day and night, who, “while we were without strength, died for the ungodly,” until thou knowest in whom thou hast believed, and canst say, “My Lord, and my God!” Remember, “always to pray, and not to faint,” till thou also canst lift up thy hand unto heaven, and declare to him that liveth for ever and ever, “Lord, Thou knowest all things, Thou knowest that I love Thee.”

11. May we all thus experience what it is to be, not almost only; but altogether Christians; being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus; knowing we have peace with God through Jesus Christ; rejoicing in hope of the glory of God; and having the love of God shed abroad in our hearts, by the Holy Ghost given unto us!

Sexuality and United Methodism

The Judicial Council of the United Methodist Church will consider language in the Book of Discipline on human sexuality. Such language is painstakingly considered and debated at each quadrennial meeting of General Conference, the denomination’s top legislative body.  Delegates to the 2008 General Conference rejected proposed changes to the United Methodist Social Principles that would have stated that church members disagree on homosexuality. 

A legislative committee majority report had recommended that delegates delete the reference that the church “does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers this practice incompatible with Christian teaching” and adopt the statement, “Faithful, thoughtful people who have grappled with this issue deeply disagree with one another; yet all seek a faithful witness.”  The revision also would have asked United Methodists and others “to refrain from judgment regarding homosexual persons and practices as the Spirit leads us to a new insight.” 

In the Baltimore-Washington Conference, Bishop John Schol was asked to rule whether a human sexuality-related resolution was properly before the conference session because it established “a new and different standard on sexuality from the Discipline."  Both the conference resolution and the church’s Social Principles acknowledge that “sexuality is God’s good gift to all” and that responsible stewardship of this gift is required.  The Baltimore-Washington Conference's resolution goes further to state that people “may be fully human” only when the gift of sexuality “is acknowledged and affirmed by themselves, the church, and society.”

Bishop Schol ruled that the resolution was in order and declared the paragraph in question was a statement of belief and did not contradict the Discipline or establish “a new and different standard on sexuality.” 

“The Social Principles are not church law and encourage prayerful, studied dialogue,” the bishop said.

In another sexuality matter, the Judicial Council will review a Detroit Conference decision concerning the Reconciling Ministries Network, an unofficial organization promoting the full participation of people of all sexual orientations in The United Methodist Church.  During the conference session, an individual asked a question about local churches identifying themselves as reconciling congregations. Bishop Jonathan Keaton ruled that he was not going to address the question because the matter did not deal with conference business.  Paul Thomas, the conference director of communications, characterized the situation as “an attempt to call out people and churches involved in the Reconciling Ministries Network.”

COMMENTS:

It troubles me that the United Methodist Church - my denomination - cannot settle an issue, at least for a while.  There always seems to be agitation related to the issue of homosexuality in the denomination.

There are essentially three groups within United Methodism:

1.   Those persons who agitate for a liberal political and social agenda.

2.   Those persons who seek to maintain current stands on political and social issues.

3.   Those persons who are focused on the ministry and witness of the local church in the lives of individuals in their communities.

4.   Those persons who are focused on maintaining what they have in their local church.

I place myself in group #3 attempting to disciple group #4, but find myself forced into group #2 in response to group #1.  Does that make sense?

These political and social issues in my opinion distract our denomination from the important work that is to be done in the local church.  The agitation by those who push for a liberal agenda simply make my work harder.

The tactic is simple.  The agitators will continue to poke and prod for an inattentive moment in an unexpected area.  Their interest is not the local church, but in justifying themselves and their agenda.

When we try to be all things to all people, we will find ourselves to be of no value to anyone.

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."

Generic Evangelicals

by Dr. Riley Case

The Confessing Movement

A man was talking about his Friends Church.  "It is hard to identify it as a Friends Church," he said, "it is basically generic evangelical."
 
A woman was speaking of the Christian college her daughter attends: "I don't know what you could call it religiously," she said, "I guess you could call it generic evangelical."
 
It is not necessarily a complement to be labeled "generic evangelical."  It usually refers to a theology or a ministry where some of the bite is taken out of the Calvinist, or fundamentalist, or Wesleyan, or Baptist, or charismatic distinctives that characterize other evangelical expressions.  Some call it "evangelical lite."     
 
Yet it is a useful category.  To be generic evangelical is to hold to the essentials of the faith without an emphasis on the distinctive doctrines or practices that often are the cause for division.  In John Wesley's words, generic evangelicalism is the "Catholic Spirit" (rightly understood).   It is holding to the irreducible truths of Original Sin, the Atonement, the Incarnation, the Authority of Scripture, and Salvation by Faith, without allowing views of baptism or doctrines of the end times to divide.  Generic evangelicalism serves as the theological basis for various para-church ministries, for a large part of the mega-church movement, and for different evangelical institutions and missions groups.
 
This form of evangelicalism has a rich history.   While the American frontier revival brought unprecedented religious fervor, it was also a time of religious wars.  Denominations were proliferating, dividing and realigning at an alarming rate.  Yet in the midst of all the sectarian rivalry there developed an evangelical message and culture and mind-set that transcended all the differences.  Believe it or not, there were areas where Methodists and Baptists could get along.  By the time Dwight L. Moody was holding his city evangelistic crusades, there was amazing cooperation among the same groups that had previously fought each other so bitterly.   And, it should be mentioned, Methodism was at the center of this developing evangelical culture. 

When theological modernism was introduced to American Christianity, it was this evangelicalism that pushed back and reacted against what appeared to be a compromising of Christian faith.   The strongest reactors were known as fundamentalists.   Whether known as fundamentalists, evangelicals, or (in the case of Methodism), the "Holiness people,"  populist, (mostly) ordinary Christians (including Methodists) never bought into modernism but continued to express their faith in revivalism, gospel music, the missionary movement, and old-fashioned values.
 
The modernism vision, which captured much of the leadership of churches that would later be known as mainline, was that of a world that could be Christianized by a public education system dominated by Protestant values.  It was committed to  cooperation with science and other modern disciplines (including eugenics).   It developed an ecumenism with like-minded Protestant denominations (No Roman Catholics need apply) that would apply (liberal) Christian values to pressing social and economic problems (related to this was the original Methodist  Social Creed of 1908).  
 
By 1926 The Christian Century could declare that fundamentalism had lost the religious wars, and would soon be relegated to antiquity as a footnote.   The future was with modernism. 
 
The pronouncement was premature.   Modernism roused initial excitement but it had  no staying power.  Its message was not life-transforming.  Cooperation with science and modern disciplines soon turned into domination by science and the secularism that fueled it.  Public education dominated by Protestant values soon turned into education without the values.   Protestant ecumenism morphed into progressive political action in which the major players were church bureaucrats of the mainline denominations.
 
Fundamentalism and other forms of evangelicalism, marginalized in the 1920s, 30s, and 40s, by the initial success of modernism, began to refashion themselves in the 1950s as neo-evangelicalism, helped along by such developments as the success of Billy Graham.  Since then it has gradually replaced the religion of the mainline denominations as the dominant expression of American Christianity.   Not only that, but evangelicalism's children and grandchildren are seen throughout the Christian world, especially in South America, Africa, and parts of Asia.   
 
At the present time it appears that American culture is becoming more and more hostile toward Christianity.   However, it is not Christianity in general but the evangelical expression of it with which the secular world has problems.   The secular progressive (that is, far-left liberal) blogs report with glee when studies seem to indicate Christianity is in decline.  At the same time they report with hysteria any developments that would link Christians with wanting to make America a Christian nation, or, of course, any evangelical interest in conservative politics.
 
Time to reassess.  Admittedly, Christianity, which from the beginning was such an integral part of America's heritage, is being pushed from the public square, whether in public schools, or in the media (such as television), or in the arts, or in the academic world. 
 
But this does not mean that historic Christianity is decline.   Evangelicals are alive and well in America, though in different forms than in the past.   If there are losers in this religious economy it is in the tradition-bound mainline denominations, whose efforts to be relevant render it even more irrelevant, and whose emphasis on relativity, diversity, and multi-faith appreciation, have compromised it to the point of powerlessness.    
As to the health of evangelicalism (especially generic evangelicalism), one can point to some of the following:
   1) The growing Christian school movement, and in the home-schooling movement.   Over the course of four years (2003-2007), the number of home-schooled students has increased by more than 36 percent, according to recently released estimates from the National Center of Education Statistics (NCES).   While others besides evangelicals are home-schooling, studies show that about three-fourths of home-schoolers are evangelicals who cite religious reasons for home-schooling. 
    2) Christian colleges (in distinction from "church-related" colleges, many of which have become secularized) are experiencing record enrollments.
3)  Para-church ministries continue to grow.  Women of Faith conferences will hold rallies in 28 cities in 2009 with about 10,000 in each conference.   The largest Christian youth festival, LifeLight Festival, met this year in early September in Sioux Falls, S.D. and drew 320,000 participants.   A Methodist-related form of the Christian youth festival is Ichus, connected with Asbury College, which celebrated 40 years of a youth gathering that attracts up to 20,000.
    4) Missionary work.   World Vision continues to be one of the biggest relief agencies in the world.  While mainline denominations have practically abandoned the effort to send cross-cultural missionaries, more missionaries than ever before are serving outside the United States.  Many of these are connected with local-churches, especially mega-churches.
    5)  Contemporary Christian radio added 28 stations in 2008 and is now the 4th largest (in terms of stations) of the nation's 31 radio formats.  Christian music, whether Black gospel, or southern gospel, is overwhelmingly performed by, and for those who identify as evangelicals.  Gaither Praise Gatherings are big enough they don't need to advertise, yet they are held in all the major cities and attract tens of thousands in attendance.

United Methodists, not officially but in the pews, are a part of all of this.    Many United Methodists, both clergy and lay, indicate that it is the activities outside the denomination that keep them alive spiritually.  Many church members live in two religious worlds.  The denominational world, and the evangelical world of para-church ministries, home-schoolers, contemporary Christian music, and community prayer and fellowship groups. 

The official church is slow to recognize this.  The Women's Division still seeks to block all evangelical expressions in women's work in United Methodist Churches.  Non-United Methodist missionaries are in many United Methodist churches, but seldom are they there officially.  Until recently, Cokesbury stores did not handle the Sunday school material of evangelical publishers.  The University Senate has gone out of its way to de-list popular evangelical seminaries that could add much to the preparation of UM students. 

The loser in all of this is The United Methodist Church itself.  Caught up in a parochial denominationalism, the church fails to link into the energy that is in evangelical religion today.  It often would substitute a social agenda for the clear proclamation of the gospel, and liberal political activism as the spiritual basis for the church's existence.

One of the interests of groups like the Confessing Movement is to serve as a bridge between the denomination and generic evangelicalism.  Methodism once defined what evangelicalism is.  Perhaps it could do so again.

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