Methodist Gaps

Riley B. Case on February 28, 2023

There are persons and/or churches who are desiring or who have decided to disaffiliate from United Methodism but who are not going to become part of the Global Methodist Church, wishing instead to become independent. They fear the GMC will soon become like the UMC or some other denomination in which church leaders or bureaucrats or persons beyond the local church dictate to them what to believe or what they can or cannot do.

A rapidly changing culture is becoming more suspicious of organizations and institutions in the name of individual freedom and autonomy. This issue is not just for churches but also for politics, government, and corporate culture.

It is time to sort some of this out. Nathan Hatch in his classic study, The Democratization of American Christianity, cites the “the mediating elite”  when referring to several types of religious groups in early America (mostly 1800 and after). There were those on-the-fringe groups—Methodists, Mormons, the Christian Union people, Baptists, and others, who had a sectarian doctrine of the church, whose understanding of faith grew out of revivalism, experience, and direct messages from the Holy Spirit.

And there were more establishment-type groups, the colonial religious bodies, for example, who were appalled by out-of-hand emotionalism, and uneducated clergy and lack of respectability that characterized the “uncivilized” west” (west of the Appalachians). This group could even talk about the first group as barbarians. The fringe folks might refer to the establishment folk as “mediating elite.”

From the first group, Methodism as it grew spectacularly, matured, and rose up in respectability, started colleges and seminaries and began directing Methodist zeal for greater good. Methodist postmillennialism morphed into views, not only of social reform, but of utopianism, and bringing the Kingdom of God to earth. The 20th century was labeled, for example, in the title of the best-known liberal journal of today, as The Christian Century. A new theology—modernism—discarded pre-scientific supernaturalism for a more scientific understanding. This led to an elite class of educators, church bureaucrats and leaders who believed modernism was the wave of the future and that “fundamentalism” was a dying relic of the past.

In 1955, author Roy L. Smith, once pastor of Methodism’s largest church (Los Angeles First), former editor of The Christian Advocate, and known as “Mr. Methodist,” wrote a well-received book, Why I Am a Methodist. Methodism at the time seemed at the height of its influence. Smith reiterated the many missional and institutional accomplishments of Methodism. He opined that part of Methodism’s greatness was in its ”liberality of viewpoint.” Smith noted the lack of doctrinal controversy in Methodism. He credited the official literature in the Sunday school that assures a “uniform” approach to learning, requiring ministers to undergo “uniform” training and preparation.

What Smith credited could explain Methodism’s present problems. “Uniform” teaching is in conflict with “liberality of viewpoint.” Uniform teaching implies standards, accountability, and exclusivity. “Liberality of viewpoint” implies a weakening if not outright denial of standards.

The Methodist seminary I attended claimed to be “broadminded.” It was diverse and inclusive in that there were far-out left liberals, far-out liberals, and moderate liberals, and those committed to neo-orthodoxy, process theology and liberation theology. There were almost no evangelicals, neo-evangelicals, fundamentalists, Calvinists, restorationists, dispensationalists, or anything else truly conservative. It was one-sided, which also included a rigid view of politics. When the presidential election was held while I was there, 88 percent of the faculty supported the Democratic nominee. Someone commented that did not mean 12 percent identified as Republican since there was also a Socialist candidate.

Faculty members admitted to no bias politically or theologically. When I asked the person in charge of chapels if we could invite some “evangelicals” to speak, he responded that all the faculty were evangelical. When I named well-known evangelicals he answered, “I believe you are talking about fundamentalists, and we will not invite anyone from the position that has berated us in the past.” When Billy Graham was in town and we asked the president of the seminary whether Billy Graham might be invited on campus the answer was, “No, because we do not wish to be identified with that form of Christianity.”

It was even worse with “official” Sunday school literature. “Uniform teaching” meant only denominationally produced literature was allowed in Sunday School. Likewise with films and hymnals. But the “official” material reflected only the liberal professional elite within the church. Methodism had a “one size fits all” understanding of educational materials, and the one size was theological modernism. This understanding meant that big churches or little churches, city churches or rural churches, churches predominantly white or churches predominately black, churches with a liberal orientation or churches with a conservative orientation, all were to use the denominational brand. There was hardly any liberality of viewpoint. One did not learn about the Atonement or Hell or miracles.

In this climate the 1972 General Conference approved a new doctrinal statement stressing “pluralism.” Theoretically pluralism works if it means a liberality of viewpoint within agreed upon boundaries, such as Methodism’s Articles of Religion or the EUB Confession of Faith, or, in the words of the 1972 statement, the” stable core” of faith. There is a “core,” at least theoretically, but it is never defined. According to the statement’s main author, theologian Albert Outler, a defined core would start arguments. But without shared beliefs, reference to, say, the doctrinal standards as they appear in the Discipline, or even an outline of what John Wesley called “essential” doctrines, citing a core is meaningless. We all do what is right in our own eyes.

United Methodism to have a future must be open to all perspectives, including evangelicals. Not all evangelicals will disaffiliate. I will retain my United Methodism because I won’t abandon the many evangelicals I know who will stay. It might include most laity. They are the people who pray and witness and teach and give in local churches. For the “mediating elite,” I believe the evangelical folk are not even recognized, let alone affirmed. United Methodists identify as Republican more than Democrat by a 60 percent – 40 percent margin, while staff at our Board of Church and Society identify as Democrat over Republican by 95 percent to 5 percent margin (based on personal impressions and conversations and not on a scientific poll).

My next article will address the gap between ordinary United Methodists and our seminaries and agencies as evidenced in the 50 years since the Methodist-EUB merger.

Riley Case is a retired UM clergy member of the Indiana Conference. For years he wrote articles for the Confessing Movement. Since the Confessing Movement is phasing out of existence his articles will now appear in IRD’s Methodist Voices series.

  1. Comment by Jeff on February 28, 2023 at 9:01 am

    Rev. Dr. Case, I treasure your articles — you shine an amazing amount of LIGHT on the important issue of “how we got here”, with minimal energy wasted on “heat”.

    This is yet another outstanding piece, and I’m grateful for the increased understanding you have gifted me.

    Blessings,
    Jeff

  2. Comment by Pkadams on March 4, 2023 at 12:12 pm

    Very interesting. I was raised and lived most of my life as a Baptist, but have always thought of myself as a Bible-believer. I now attend a Methodist church that has disaffiliated. This church votes Republican in fiscal politics and Democratic in social politics. One can vote for free market Capitalism and not be an evil, greedy, racist, hateful, etc person. I find it so interesting that both ‘sides’ want freedom, but they want different kinds of freedom. The right wants freedom from the state. The left wants freedom from responsibility. The division in society today is between realism and idealism. Those who recognize human nature for what it is, versus those who don’t.

  3. Comment by David Gingrich on March 7, 2023 at 6:31 am

    The UMC is a dead man walking.

  4. Comment by George on March 7, 2023 at 9:52 am

    No, I don’t agree. I believe the UMC will continue to hemorrhage churches and members for a while. Then they will merge with other “woke” denominations to form a church that is more political in nature. You know, “birds of a feather”. This new mega woke church will have lobbyists that will help expand their woke theology into our nation’s law. That’s the future. You can make book on it.

  5. Comment by betsy on March 9, 2023 at 6:29 pm

    An excellent description of the current divide from Pkadams : “The division in society today is between realism and idealism. Those who recognize human nature for what it is, versus those who don’t.”

    Reminds me of another excellent perspective: Progressives want to change the world without dealing with the reality of the world they are trying to change.

  6. Comment by Donald Bryant on March 12, 2023 at 7:06 am

    It’s not you abandoning the Methodists who remain. It is they who are abandoning you.

The work of IRD is made possible by your generous contributions.

Receive expert analysis in your inbox.