Restart

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.

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.

Full Communion: Lutherans, Methodists, and Homosexuality

by Dr. Riley Case of the Confessing Movement

One of the more refreshing experiences of my ministry was serving for eight years in Indiana on a United Methodist-Lutheran (ELCA) dialogue team.  Brought together by the bishops in Indiana, the team was exploring how the two denominations might work toward full communion.  This was at the same time discussions were taking place nationally on an official level.   Our state group finished its work, published its conclusions, and waited for the national group to catch up.

Full communion talks with Lutherans were (at least at that time) encouraging for United Methodist evangelicals for the following reasons:

1. Lutherans could talk about theology meaningfully.  Unfortunately, many United Methodists, including those who graduated from United Methodist seminaries, could not.   The talks led a number of United Methodists on the team to do homework.
2. The Lutherans believed that Christian full communion must derive from the historic faith.  Consequently, there were continual references to Augsburg, Athanasius, Nicea, and the Articles of Religion.   There could well be more talk about John Wesley in a two-day session with Lutherans than there could in a year of United Methodist meetings.  Lutherans had some (if not all) of their priorities straight.  Contrast this with efforts to have dialogue between evangelicals and progressives in the United Methodist Church.  It is almost impossible when dealing with progressives to turn the conversation toward the importance of doctrine.  UM progressives want to talk about feelings, institutional connectionalism, tolerance, and common social goals rather than doctrine as a basis for unity.  Indeed, a common criticism of evangelicals by progressives is that evangelicals are "rigid" and "intolerant," implying that doctrine itself is rigid and intolerant since when strongly held it violates the progressive value of inclusiveness and relativity. 
3. Lutherans helped United Methodists sort out what was and what was not, essential to our expression of the faith.  Lutherans were mystified by explanations of revivalism and the UM propensity to sing songs like "Victory in Jesus."  UMs were mystified by the Lutheran assumption  that our sessions together (at least when hosted by Lutherans) needed to start off with wine, crackers, and cheese.

 Even at that time-20 years ago-when our state Lutheran and United Methodist groups were having conversations, it was apparent that, practically speaking, from a United Methodist perspective, United Methodists always did consider ourselves in "full communion" with groups like the Lutherans.  United Methodists practice open communion and accept ministers from other groups to serve in our churches as long as they meet our standards (which for the most part are not very demanding).    So the question was not whether we would accept Lutherans but rather would they accept us.

Now, it seems, they do.  At the UM General Conference in 2008 and at the Lutheran Assembly this summer the highest legislative bodies of both denominations approved action declaring we are now in "Full Communion."  This is not a merger (of course), but an acknowledgment that each church acknowledges the other as a partner in the Christian faith, recognizes the authenticity of each other's baptism and Eucharist, and is committed to working together toward Christian unity.

Why then are we not more excited?   We are not more excited because the same Assembly that voted Full Communion with United Methodists also voted to lift a ban that prohibited practicing gays and lesbians from serving as pastors.  Indeed, as reported in the secular media (and in some of the religious media) the action on full communion with UMs and the action on lifting the ban on gay clergy were sometimes mentioned in the same headline, as in this headline: Lutherans Approve of Gay Clergy; Vote Unity with Methodists.

No wonder the Sunday after the Lutheran action is reported, UM Sunday school classes and study groups had to ask what was going on.   If UMs receive Lutheran pastors in UM churches does this mean UMs must accept practicing gays?   (The answer is no because all persons coming into UM ministry must adhere to UM standards.)

But there is still a sense of betrayal.  Lutherans who want a closer relationship with United Methodists vote at the same time to distance themselves from the rest of Christendom by taking a stance on human sexuality that is contrary not only to the Scriptures but to the stated position of 98% of the Christian bodies of the world.  ELCA Lutherans in America may have endeared themselves to the Lutheran state churches of Europe (which are known for their deadness in spirit) but they are not even in full communion with other Lutherans in America, or with Lutherans in third-world countries.

We should pray for the Lutherans.  Myriads of Lutherans in local churches are in upheaval.  As a denomination ELCA Lutherans are losing members at a rate of twice that of United Methodists (for the past several years about 1.6% compared with about .8% for UMs).  Lutherans have much to offer United Methodists, and American Christianity.  But the future does not look bright.

COMMENTARY:  Dr. Case makes a calm assesment of the situation and the relationship between Lutherans (ELCA) and Methodists (UMC).  It is interesting, as Dr. Case points out, that the UMC is celebrating full communion with a Lutheran denomination that is not in full communion with other Lutherans.

The ELCA is linking itself to the more liberal and shrinking (or irrelevant) mainline (or sideline) denominations - Episcopalians and United Methodists.  Maybe the strategy is to pull each other down.

Dr. Case makes a confusing statement about whether or not ELCA pastors could be appointed as pastors of UM churches.  This certainly is the hope of some of the UM leaders that were celebrating the full communion agreement (see the previous article by going to the "Lutherans" category of this blog).    If sharing pastors is a "benefit" of full communion, then pastors who have not fulfilled the requirements for UM ordination may be appointed to UM churches.

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.

Methodist Renewal

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.

United Methodist Annual Conferences Say "No"

United Methodists in America are clearly rejecting some proposals of their leaders. Those leaders are the Council of Bishops, the Connectional Table (47 clergy and laypersons), and many of the delegates to the 2008 General Conference. That group was responsible for the 32 constitutional amendments that were approved by at least a 2/3rd vote of the 2008 General Conference.  As of this date (June 24), the rank and file United Methodists of America, expressing themselves through their Annual Conferences, have delivered a resounding rejection to the six most dangerous amendments - Amendments I (1), IV (4), X (10), XIII (13), XXIII (23), and XXVI (26). Currently most of the amendments are being rejected by at least a 2/3rd vote. None of them has received even a simple majority (51%) approval.  And we haven’t heard from most of the Central Conferences yet. 

 

American Methodists are sending some clear messages to their leadership:

1. Many delegates to the 2008 General Conference did not represent very well the beliefs and concerns of United Methodists back home.  
2. The leadership of our church should stop tinkering with our organization because organization is not our problem.  
3. The main problem of the UMC is spiritual and theological. We no longer have consensus about our mission and message. We’re not sure anymore that all persons in their natural condition are lost and need to be saved. We’re not sure anymore about the purpose of the cross and whether it was necessary. We have a desperate need for our bishops to lead us in recovering our fundamental beliefs as stated in our Articles of Religion and Confession of Faith.

- by Dr. Bill Bouknight, The Confessing Movement

Western Civilization, Missions, and Methodism

By Dr. Riley Case

Dr. Ralph D.  Winter, founder of the U.S. Center for World Mission, died May 20.   Winter was named in 2005 in Time magazine as one of the top 25 most influential evangelicals in America.   Winter founded a mission think tank, a university, and a mission society.  But perhaps his greatest contribution to the world of mission came with his ground-breaking 1974 presentation at the Congress for World Evangelization in Lausanne, Switzerland.  It was at this legendary summit, convened by American evangelist Billy Graham, where Winter introduced the term "unreached people groups" that had the profound effect of shifting the entire global mission strategy thereafter.   The phrase "unreached peoples" was first defined by Winter as a people group that had less than a certain percentage of Christians. Later, it was redefined as a group of people with their own distinct culture or language that does not have a viable indigenous evangelizing church movement.

For most of the 19th century and into the 20th century mission philosophy sought to Christianize the world by civilizing the world.  It was often assumed that "civilization" meant Western civilization.   Within Methodism the holiness missionaries and persons like E. Stanley Jones (Christ of the Indian Road) sought to promote a more indigenous form of Christianity that transcended cultures and civilizations.

For the moment it is difficult to understand what is the operative mission philosophy of the mainline churches.  The 2008 General conference added to the annual conference purpose statement: "to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world," but the suspicion is that "transformation" in the eyes of UM leaders has more to do with social action and social justice than the conversion of "unreached peoples."

At any rate, Western civilization is increasingly being divorced from its Christian roots so that it is trending toward secularism, multiculturalism, and "inclusivism."   While this may be appealing to academic types and bureaucrats of mainline denominations in North America and Europe, it is not gaining traction world-wide.

It is good at this point to revisit Samuel P. Huntington's The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (1996).  Huntington argues that the world of the twenty-first century will be divided not so much by economic systems or political systems but by different religious visions.  Basically these are visions inspired by Islam and visions inspired by Christianity (with China and Asia offering up a third alternative).  Huntington further argues that it is not Islamic extremists that will give the West problems but with Islam itself.   Ideas which seemed outlandish when the book was written in 1996 seem prophetic today.

While Christianity is growing worldwide it is not the Christianity identified with the West.   Islam, on the other hand, is also growing worldwide and some of the fastest growth is in the West.  Part of this is demographics.  Huntington points out (p. 119) that while young adult (15-24) population reaches 18% in Muslim countries, it is only 10% in Europe and 13% in the USA.

Other studies show that it takes 2.11 children per family to maintain a culture.  In Europe family size equals 1.38 children per family.  The USA averages 2.11 children per family but when Latinos are factored out the average is only 1.6.   In Muslim lands, and even in Muslim families in Europe, the birth rate is averaging well over 4 children per family.   In France 45% of all children in schools are now Muslim.

A number of social scientists argue we need a smaller birth rate because of world overpopulation.  However, it would appear it is not concern for overpopulation that drives the West's smaller birthrate, but secularization.   Secularization breeds a self-directed society and a self-directed society tends to diminish the importance of the family.What conclusions can be drawn from all this?

First, we must work against the devaluing of the Christian base for Western civilization.   The drive for special privileges (such as the redefining of the understanding of marriage as between a man and woman) for practicing homosexuals, and the break-down of morality in America are examples of why Muslims will increasingly hate us, and why we can expect increasing conflict between Islam and the West in coming years.

Second, we must guard against the secularization of our own Christian faith.   What is called "progressive" Christianity will, as with the modernism that preceded it, only serve to diminish Christian faith.  It is possible to keep compromising the faith away until there is nothing left.   It is for reasons like this that the Confessing Movement, with its strong proclamation that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior, is in existence.

Third, we must see Muslims as one of the world's great "unreached people" groups. Muslims need Jesus Christ as much as anyone.  This should seem obvious.  Yet there seems to be reluctance in Western nations to engage Muslims with the claims of Christ (not so in Africa).   Not long ago the U.S. military confiscated (and reportedly burned) Bibles in Afghanistan printed in the Pashto and Dari languages to be shared with Afghani citizens and friends.  The confiscation came after extremist Afghani Muslims and American atheists objected to what was called "proselytizing."  There is no way United Methodists can be serious about making disciples for the transformation of the world if we will be intimidated into silence by persons offended by the gospel.

"Go therefore and make discipless of all nations..." (Mt. 28:18).

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

What Bishop Lindsey Davis Expects from His Pastors

Bishop Lindsey Davis became the Resident Bishop of Kentucky in September 2008.  Soon after his arrival he met with the clergy of each district.  In this meeting he set forth his expectations for his pastors. 

Bishop Davis comes back to Kentucky where he had been a pastor.  He has served in the episcopal office for twelve years before coming to Kentukcy.

Here are the bishop's expectations as I remember them:

1. Be a spiritual leader in your congregation.
2. Have a godly character.
3. Practice the spiritual disciplines that include prayer, Bible study, worship, communion, and acts of mercy.
4. Uphold and teach the order, dignity, and doctrine of the United Methodist Church.
5. Accept the authority of those appointed above you.
6. Go where sent.
7. Be an evangelist and a witness to the good news of God in Jesus Christ.
8. Work hard and take care of yourself.
9. Take care of your family.
10. Have a sense of humor.
11. Always exercise good judgement.
12. Finish the race well.

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.

The Judicial Council of the United Methodist Church Upholds Pastor's Discretion in Admitting Members

The Judicial Council of The United Methodist Church, at its April 22-24, 2009, session responded to a declaratory request from the Alaska Annual Conference, which invited the Council to overrule a previous decision and hold that the pastor of a local church has no discretion when an applicant states that he or she is ready to take the vows of professing membership.  The request asked whether paragraphs 214 ("all persons may . . . become members of any local church) and 225 (transfer of membership from another denomination) of the 2004 Book of Discipline are constitutional under paragraph 4 of the Constitution ("all persons without regard to race, color, national origin, status, or economic condition shall be eligible to . . . upon taking vows declaring the Christian faith, become professing members of any local church. . . .").  In Decision 1032, the Judicial Council stated, "Paragraphs 214 and 225 are permissive and do not mandate receipt into membership of all persons regardless of their willingness to affirm membership vows."  The Judicial Council further declared that the pastor-in-charge of a local church has the power to determine "a person's readiness to receive the vows of membership."  The Judicial Council upheld its previous Decision 1032.

Membership "Lite" Results in Membership Decline

Perhaps no sociologist has written on American churches more extensively than Dr. Rodney Stark of Baylor University.  Along with Dr. Roger Finke he wrote The Churching of America 1776-1990 Winners and Losers in our Religious Economy  (Rutgers: 1990), followed by Acts of Faith Explaining the Human Side of Religion (University of California: 1992).  Rodney Stark’s most recent book, What Americans Really Believe (Baylor: 2008) analyzes the beliefs and church-going habits of Americans.  

A common theme in all of these books (as well as several others of Stark’s books) is the relationship between belief systems and church growth (or decline).  Stark and Finke elaborate on Richard Niebuhr’s thesis in the classic sociological study, Christ and Culture, which traces the progress of movements and sects to churches and relates this to tensions with culture.  In Churching of America Stark and Finke chart the progress of Methodism from 1776, when Methodism represented 2.4% of America’s religious adherents, to 1850, when it represented 34.2%.  (Probably the most spectacular rise of any church group ever.)  Baptists during the same period increased from 17% to 20.5%.  The Congregationalists decreased from 20% to 4%.  The authors then seek to analyze why Baptists overtook Methodists by 1890.  The general thesis is that “high tension” churches, which demand a lot, tend to grow while churches which broaden (and become more inclusive and accommodating) and become “low tension” tend to decline.

In What Americans Really Believe carries the thesis farther and analyzes church growth or decline since 1960.  The news for United Methodists and other mainline denominations is not good.  In 1960, Methodists represented 6% of America’s population.  In 2000, United Methodism represented only 3%.  In other words Methodism as a percent of the American population declined by 50% in forty years (and this does not even take into account what has happened since the year 2000).  Other mainline churches fared as poorly (The Disciples lost 71% of their market share).  At the same time, the Church of the Nazarene increased 33%, the Assemblies of God 225%, and the Church of God in Christ 786%. 

These gains and losses are related to what the denominations or groups believe and what standards they maintain.  The “high tension” groups, with a clear sense of purpose, strongly held beliefs, and high moral standards, grew.  The “low tension” groups, with an uncertain or ambiguous sense of purpose, loosely held beliefs, and accommodating moral standards, declined.  Or, to put this in United Methodist jargon, groups which stress a more strict confessional base, high membership expectations, and strong moral convictions, grew.  Churches which are casual in their belief systems, accommodating and inclusive in membership expectations, and permissive in moral stances, declined.

If there is any truth to the Stark findings, one might believe that United Methodists would be seeking to recover Methodism’s core values and core beliefs, and instituting programs and initiatives that would raise membership standards and moral expectations.  Instead, the opposite is true.  One bishop has argued that the foundation of United Methodism is inclusivism.

This is being presented to us dramatically in an amendment to paragraph IV of the constitution.  This amendment, already passed by the General Conference and now before annual conferences in 2009 for ratification, would have the constitution of the church say that “all persons…shall be eligible to..(upon baptism and taking vows)..become professing members in any local church in the connection.”  The amendment is deceptively simple yet deceptively deceiving.  It basically removes all standards, whether doctrinal, ethical, moral, or behavioral, for membership.  Constitutionally the local church cannot require anything of anyone except that they be baptized and speak the vows as however they wish to interpret them.  Constitutionally, a church cannot require of anyone that they have an experience with Jesus Christ, or that they should attend membership classes, or give, or act responsibly in society.

United Methodist Happenings - Global Ministries and Mission Society

“Global Ministries and Mission Society” is the title of a significant resolution passed by the 2008 General Conference in Fort Worth (see Book of Resolutions, p. 727).  The resolution mentions the fact that the Mission Society has “conducted itself with Christian grace and cooperation.”  That the General Board of Global Ministries (GBGM) has worked collaboratively with other sending agencies (with the implication that such has not been the case with the Mission Society).  Also, that for too long there have been “some attitudes of competition around the notions of shared ministry” between the two agencies; and that the church is better served by cooperation rather than competition.  The statement then resolves that the church commend the Mission Society, and that there be new conversations and liaisons between it and GBGM, and that bishops, cabinets, and conferences acknowledge and support the work of the Mission Society.

It has been a year since the resolution was passed and so far, no conversations are on the horizon.  Nor are there any evidences that acknowledgment and support are coming from bishops, cabinets, and annual conferences.  An article in the newsletter for retired GBGM missionaries was highly critical of the resolution.  When a positive relationship was developing between the society and some GBGM work in South America and a breakthrough seemed imminent, GBGM intervened and the project was not developed.  A feature article about this work was prepared by United Methodist Reporter but never published. 

The Mission Society for United Methodists is celebrating its twenty-fifth anniversary this year.  It grew out of the concern about the number of UM missionaries, which had declined from 2,700 earlier in the century, and 1,453 in 1938 (at the height of the Depression), and 1,742 in 1960, to 453 in 1984 (and this after the EUBs were added).  There was further concern that the emphasis at GBGM had shifted away from winning a lost world to Jesus Christ, to liberation theology.  The Evangelical Missions Council, a group loosely associated with Good News, had sought, and had been involved in conversations with GBGM to express these concerns, but these talks broke off when it was evident no progress was being made.  At that point, in 1984, the Mission Society was formed.  It sought from the beginning to be a supplemental, and not a competing agency with GBGM.  Among its several purposes was an effort to keep missionary support within the United Methodist orbit from churches and individuals who had indicated they would no longer support the programs of GBGM.

Bishops, conferences, and GBGM vigorously opposed the Society from day one.  After the president of the Council of Bishops, James Thomas, had promised to help with the commissioning of the first missionaries, other bishops intervened and aborted the plan for the bishops’ blessing.  For years after, bishops, who could give special appointments to pastors to all sorts of secular and questionable agencies, refused to appoint to the Society.  Pastors were forced to take Leave of Absence or withdraw their credentials.  Even bishops who were somewhat sympathetic to the society had to resort to convoluted schemes to avoid directly appointing to the Society.  Some pastors serving under the Society were appointed to overseas conferences, several simply “to countries.”  At least one was appointed as a “conference evangelist” (though serving with the Society).  Part of the objection was the name “Society for United Methodists” which implied the agency had some official standing.  Eventually the words “United Methodist” were dropped so that it presently is simply the Mission Society.

The Mission Society today reports 235 full-time missionaries on the field working in more than 30 countries (by way of contrast GBGM lists fewer than 200 overseas full-time career missionaries).  The Society has a missionary-to-home staff ratio of 11.5 to 1 (compared with 2 to 1 with GBGM).  Appeals to the Society come, basically, from bishops and conferences of overseas churches.  Large numbers have been won to Christ; lives have been changed; hope has been offered; churches, hospitals, and schools have been built. 

The remarkable stories of the good done by the society have gone dutifully unreported by United Methodist News Service, which is part of United Methodist Communications, the public relations arm of the church.  Work that is out of favor with bishops and boards and agencies, tends to be ignored by other “official” agencies of the church.

The resolution of the General Conference is an indication that many in the church want to see cooperation and collaboration between faithful United Methodists.  The overseas church, which is growing rapidly, is leading the way in this desire for working together.  Some US bishops have expressed cautious support for a new relationship.