Methodism and the Mediating Elite — Part II

Not all of us have given up on the United Methodist Church (UMC). We are encouraged by the formation of a new Methodist body, the Global Methodist Church and understand fully why this is needed. We lament, with many others, that this seems not to be happening amicably, but with a lot of rancor and hard feelings. But still we affirm that God is not finished with the UMC.

Too much of who I am, too many of my friends and former parishioners are still part of the UMC for me to disassociate. My concern is for the evangelical constituency of the church. I am convinced that despite the progressive institutional leadership of the present UMC, the core constituency of the church is still more evangelical than liberal. The church still has good standing in many of our communities, not just around the world but even in America.

So, having said that, we press on for reform and renewal. That reform and renewal will have to address, among other things, the GAP, by which I mean the differences between people in the pew and people in the bureaucracy, between clergy and laity, between different understandings of doctrine and practice, and between a bottom-faith and a top-down faith.

We begin with the conviction that the local church is the focus of evangelism, outreach, nurture and ministry. This is as against the view that the most significant ministry and witness of the denomination is through its “leadership” (bishops and boards and agencies), and thus the primary task of the local churches is to pay apportionments and support the programs of the denomination. Whether this definition of the problem is oversimplified or not, the truth still is that there is an institutional and ideological gap between boards and agencies and members of local churches.

The following is my personal testimony illustrating the GAP. While I never experienced a seriously divided denomination in the church I grew up in, or in any of the local churches I pastored, or in any of the churches in the district I served as a district superintendent, it is a different story for Jurisdictional Conferences (I have attended nine of these, seven as a delegate or alternate) and General Conferences (I have attended nine of these, five as a delegate, two more as an alternate, and two more representing the Confessing Movement).

Some background. The first of the modern-day renewal movements, Good News, was established after Charles Keysor wrote an article for the Christian Advocate entitled, Methodism’s Silent Minority in the late 1960s. The thrust of the article was that there is a sizable group of Methodists who love God, who are faithful to the Scriptures and the doctrines of the church, but who are often overlooked and neglected in the counsels of the church. The response to the article was so positively overwhelming that the Good News movement was founded. Comments were made that maybe this group should be silent no more and maybe this group is not even a minority. There were no board and agency staff persons or bishops or denominational leaders identifying with Good News at its inception.

Good News came into existence at the same time as the new United Methodist Church was formed out of the merger with the Methodists and the EUB churches. The merger could not have come at a worse time. The 60s were times of cultural upheaval. The newly formed United Methodist Church, launched by the 1972 General Conference (GC), wanting to keep up with the times, institutionalized the radical social agenda of that day. The church adopted doctrinal pluralism, mandated social engineering by way of quota systems, created independent superboards, depreciated evangelism at the expense of social action, and sought to reform the nation and the church by authorizing a Book of Resolutions where the agencies could pontificate about the issues of the day.

There were no voices that were able to effect a moderating influence of the 1972 GC juggernaut. The only opportunity for influence any evangelicals had was through the petition process. Good News generated a few petitions that reflected the populist constituency of the church: allow churches to use non-Methodist Sunday school material, withdraw from COCU (Consultation on Church Union), and limit tenure of general agency staff. These petitions and the ideas behind them were overwhelmingly rejected by the GC.

However, in 1976 Good News generated 15,000 petitions (out of a total of 20,000). About 11,000 of the GN petitions dealt with holding to historic standards on human sexuality. Petitions submitted by boards and agencies and special task forces were printed and distributed ahead of time to all delegates. Petitions by Good News, by churches and individuals, and even by annual conferences were not even listed in the Christian Advocate. While the GC upheld the church’s stance on celibacy in singleness and faithfulness in marriage, all of the rest of the GN petitions were rejected.

The number of petitions by GN and other evangelicals and by local churches was enough, however, to generate a rather violent reaction by the liberal and institutional forces in the church. Instead of seeing these petitions as a grassroots expression of evangelical Christianity, Good News was now portrayed as ”reactionary,” “highly subsidized,” “fundamentalist,” “out-of-step,” “seeking to undermine the Church’s social witness,” and “not serving the best interests of the church.”

Good News did a lot more work on its petitions in 1980. It introduced the idea of designated giving, in which local churches could direct some of their apportionment obligations toward programs and agencies that would better reflect the churches’ sense of its own mission. It advocated for Family Life as a missional priority. It wanted the church to uphold its stand on human sexuality and the definition of marriage.  However, these were interpreted as divisive and reactionary. It is telling that, in January 1980, after a general church meeting leading up to General Conference, UM News Service reported that all of the agencies and all of the caucuses except for Good News, opposed designated giving, supported the elimination of a paragraph that denied apportionment money supporting gay groups, and supported eliminating the paragraph saying “we do not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider this practice incompatible with Christian teaching” (a phrase added to the Discipline from the floor at the 1972 GC). Thus, it appeared that any evangelical voice was at variance with the rest of the entire church, and especially with the church leadership.

The Advanced Editions Workbook for the 1980 General Conference revealed the priorities of those in church leadership. Workbooks included 140 pages for resolutions, recommendations, and references from general agencies, 285 pages covering commission reports and special studies, 223 pages of legislative proposals, and 174 pages of additional agency reports.

There were no reports from anyone outside the United States, nor from any annual conferences.

Though there were about 16,000 petitions and legislative proposals sent in from annual conferences, local churches, and individuals, not one of these was listed or summarized in the Advanced Edition Workbook. It is telling that all the petitions from boards and agencies that addressed the issue of human sexuality—without exception—called for the elimination of negative language regarding human sexuality. By way of contrast, there were petitions from 20 annual conferences, 11 annual conference organizations, 948 from other church organizations (Sunday school classes), and 1,323 from individuals asking the conference to retain the stance. The debate was intense with many amendments and substitutes and points of order. Forty-eight column inches in the Daily Christian Advocate were given to the debate. In the end the vote to liberalize the church’s stance failed 729 to 225 with eight abstentions. Is there any better illustration of the GAP?

When appointed as a district superintendent in 1983, I told my bishop and the pastors and churches that I intended to listen to the concerns of the district and give expression to those concerns at the GC. This was in contrast to other delegates who were making the point that they were not “representatives,” but delegates. They had been elected to study the issues and vote their own conscience, regardless of the convictions of those who elected them. How this worked was illustrated at the 1984 GC where a large conference delegation was seated behind our North Indiana Conference. It was before electronic voting so delegates voted by show of hands or standing (so we knew how everyone was voting). In the series of votes on human sexuality issues that delegation consistently voted 23-1, or 22-2, on every opportunity that would liberalize the church’s stance on human sexuality. During one break I spoke to the lone one delegate and made some comment about the overwhelming support for Disciplinary change. He commented that what was happening was in spite of the fact that the year before their annual conference had passed a petition asserting that  the conference position was to support the present stance of the Discipline.

The mediating elite of the conference, the GC delegation, was influenced not at all by the convictions of ordinary church members.

In July 2010 a report entitled “Operational Assessment of the Connectional Church” under the direction of the Call to Action Steering Team of the UMC was released. The team was given the responsibility of making recommendations for a major restructuring of the UMC. Among the findings: 1) There is a general lack of trust within the church leading to a loss of connectionalism, particularly in leadership and in boards and agencies; 2) There is a loss of mission definition and relevancy and sense of loss of identity; 3) There is a loss of the Wesleyan theological focus; 4) There is increasing polarization in beliefs and key issues. On the basis of these findings, recommendations for restructuring were sent to the 2012 GC for action. Those present at the conference know that after hours of debate and disagreement and amendments a plan was spliced together that was nullified by the Judicial Council. In other words, nothing was done. It would be business as usual. It was noted by many that agency staff celebrated as did caucus groups including Methodist Federation for Social Action.

There is more to be written on this (to be continued in the next article) but it should be evident what the convictions of many of us are that the UMC must change. Business as usual since 1972 has led to a membership loss in America of nearly five million members. Is no one concerned about this loss? Overseas churches receive almost no benefit from boards and agencies. Large churches receive almost no benefit from boards and agencies. Condense, merge, eliminate. Time for action.

Part 1 of this series is viewable here.

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.