Is there Hope for Methodism?

These are tough days for Americans once associated with the United Methodist Church. Large numbers of churches are disaffiliating. Local churches are splintering. Some who have disaffiliated are joining a new Methodist denomination, the Global Methodist Church, while others choose to be independent.

It was not supposed to be this way. Some of us, as far back as 30 years, knew that our differences over such matters as human sexuality were so great there would need to be some sort of division. We believed that it could be amicable. There was a good chance for this with the plan worked out by leading progressives and traditionalists called the Protocol. This plan, however–and I think there is no dispute about this–was torpedoed by progressive leaders who also exerted influence to cancel the 2022 General Conference (the reason given was COVID-19) which could have approved the Protocol, or amicable separation.

That is water under the bridge. The question now is, given the situation we are now in, is there hope for the future? If we believe God is still in control and if God has called out Methodism to be a major force for good in the world, we must say yes. Let us survey the situation.

The Global Methodist Church has launched amid enthusiasm. The group will not add new doctrines to historic Methodism. It stands firmly on Wesley and historic Methodism. It will create new structures that should release local churches and annual conferences for effective ministry.

Methodism outside the United States will have freedom to pursue its own vision of Wesleyanism. In the past fifty years when Methodism in America has lost over five million members the church in Africa alone has gained more than five million members. Some churches may join the Global Methodist Church. Others may choose to remain United Methodist. Either way, these churches will be free to chart their own course free from American domination.

The biggest question concerns the ongoing United Methodist Church in America. Can it change?  Can it catch a vision? It is quite probable that, in the name of adjusting to the present culture, it will re-write the Discipline’s present stances on marriage, homosexual practice and transgenderism. Will it be able to attract a different group of people because of this? There will be some budget cutbacks. Can this lead to a revised and streamlined structure?

The following is an evangelical analysis as to how the United Methodist Church can have a hopeful future (in the interest of full disclosure, I myself am staying United Methodist). 

There must be a new commitment to historic Methodist doctrine. While UM leadership in America insists it has no interest in changing our doctrinal standards, the truth is that many of the central affirmations of Methodism (and evangelical faith) are widely ignored. The early Methodists in America were told that they had nothing to do but save souls. This has been replaced in Methodism recently by obsession with social ills. We fight economic inequality, racism, sexism, and many other isms. The basis for any kind of social change is first of all the changed heart.

Unfortunately, this is not likely to happen, at least on the institutional level. The seminaries for the most part abandoned historical Wesleyanism more than 100 years ago. This is also true for much of our  overloaded and bloated bureaucracy, dating back at least to the 1968 Evangelical United Brethren – Methodist merger. Our Articles of Religion says of the Word, the Son of God, that he “truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual sins of men.” The idea of the Father being reconciled to us seems an unknown concept in the progressive worldview. “The Father being reconciled” implies an Atonement that turns aside the wrath of a just God. It is at this very point that much of progressive and even centrist United Methodism has compromised historic Methodist doctrine.

At the same time a great part of United Methodism apart from the seminaries and apart from many of our leaders still is still committed to our historic doctrines. This is borne out by polls and studies of what our United Methodist people believe. A majority of our people in local churches still affirm and testify to the truth of John 3:16: “God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.” This has created what I and others refer to as THE GAP, the chasm between ordinary UMs and their leadership in matters of the essence of our faith. Many of us who have not given up on the UM Church are counting on faithful church members to be the leaven in the lump on doctrinal issues.

There must be a revamping of the institutional structure.   

Has it not occurred to church leaders that we have the same number of UM seminaries in 2023 as we had in 1973, and yet we have five million fewer American church members to support those seminaries? Yet the church is subsidizing these seminaries with the MEF (Methodist Education Fund—or bail-out funds) of up to $15 million a year. We could do with half the number of church boards and agencies.

As a pastor I have been most encouraged about the church when I have been in local church, or even district or annual conference settings when I have heard testimonies of God’s great work among us. I have been most discouraged when I have been at General Conferences (I have been a delegate five times and an alternate several others) and even more so at Jurisdictional Conferences and have witnessed general agencies trying to impose programs and actions on the Methodist people. Some of the most embarrassing moments have been when monitors from Status and Role of Women have criticized the speech and ideas of ordinary Methodists (particularly Africans).

We must learn to listen, listen, listen.

Many years ago (40 to be exact) I was made a district superintendent in the North Indiana Conference. The year before I was appointed three churches had split. I was convinced much of the unhappiness was because the general church and even the annual conference were not hearing the real concerns of local churches. I pledged that every church in the district would have its own charge conference (nothing like the abomination of the group charge conferences where there is almost no honest sharing). I would also meet yearly with the pastor-parish committee without the pastor present. I would have no agenda but would be there to listen. I found out that people had plenty to say. In seven of the first nine charge conferences in my district the matter of the new National Council of Churches Inclusive Language Lectionary was brought up. I tried to correct misinformation but for the most part I was sympathetic and said I would personally forward their concerns by a letter written by me on district stationary (I was amazed that leaders and agencies actually responded to district stationary when they often did not respond to letters on local church stationary).

As superintendent, I passed out questionnaires and conducted polls. This was helpful to me when preparing for matters of general church interest. A big issue before 1984 was inclusive language, particularly a general conference study that presented the document, “Words That Hurt and Heal,” which not only proposed proper language for use by United Methodists but also, at least at one point, was proposing there be a Commission on Inclusive Language (like Commission on Race and the Status and Role of Women). When I was made a consultant on the Hymnal Revision Committee the churches provided lots of input on what they preferred and did not prefer. The study on inclusive language was “received” but not approved.

I would argue that the hymnal adopted in 1988 (the present official UM hymnal) was one of the most successful denominational hymnals ever published, in large part because input was received from local churches in a way never done before. Much of the credit goes to the editor Carlton Young who, after also editing the 1964 hymnal, indicated that the 1988 hymnal would be a hymnal for the people and not for the musical elites. The most notable challenge came early on when the “Language and Theology Subcommittee” (of which I was a member) voted to delete the hymns “Onward Christian Soldiers” and “Battle Hymn of the Republic” because of “militaristic imagery.” 12,000 letters were written objecting to the change (there were by actual count 58 letters in support of the deletions). The committee listened and the hymns were restored. Along with this, surveys were done on what hymns local churches were actually singing (my district was very interested in this). So the committee added not only “Afro-American spirituals” (before this these appeared in evangelical hymnals but not mainline Protestant hymnals), but also gospel hymns like “Great Is Thy Faithfulness,” “Victory in Jesus,” “And Can It Be” (diadem tune), “In the Garden,” “It Is Well With My Soul,” “Because He Lives,” “What Can Wash Away My Sins,” and worship choruses. The present UM Hymnal mentions the blood of Jesus 85 times. A survey of other mainline hymnals recently published reveals none can total as many as 15.

The faithful remnant in the UM Church has its work cut out for it. There must be some strong voices for reform. Can this happen?