Confessions of a Maverick – Part 1

A recent Public Religion Research Institute poll reported in Christian Century (Nov. 2023) reveals that the theological, cultural, and political gap between progressive clergy and much more conservative laity not only is continuing but may be growing even wider.

In terms of political ideology, only 23% of all mainline white American churchgoers identify as liberal, while 55% of their clergy leaders do so. Thirty-two percent of white mainline churchgoers consider themselves moderates and 43% conservative. In contrast, among the clergy who serve these conservative mainliners, 22% consider themselves moderate and only 22% conservative.

Half of mainline clergy identify as Democrats and only 14% as Republican (those who identify as “moderate” make up the rest). Among United Methodists, 60% of laity say they are Republican and 40% Democrat. While UM clergy are far more apt to be Democrat than Republican, among bishops and board and agency staff the percentage may be as high as 80% to 20%.

This, of course, is hardly news to many. I knew a United Methodist ministerial candidate who graduated from one of our premier United Methodist-related universities and then from one of the most highly regarded (liberal) seminaries in the nation. After all of this preparation he received his first appointment, to a circuit in a rural area in a midwestern state. After two months he not only resigned from his church but dropped out of the ministry.

“This has been a terrible mistake,” he explained.

The best ministerial education possible, at least from an institutional perspective, failed to equip him to minister to ordinary people in an ordinary American setting.

This has been going on for over 100 years. Early Methodist growth in America was from among the poor and unsophisticated. By the early 1840s when Methodists could claim about one-third of all religious adherents in the nation it could claim almost no colleges or seminaries.

But Methodism began to move up the respectability scale.

Colleges and then seminaries were established, then brick churches with steeples. While doing research from our local newspapers from the 1880s I noted that the clergy of the leading Methodist churches in the community were often referred to as “distinguished” and “eminent.” It was never so for the African Methodist Episcopal clergy or for the Salvation Army. By the 1890s Methodists began to lose the allegiance of many who were lower on the social scale. Almost every group, white or black, that now identify as some form of “Church of God” came out of Methodism.  Denominations like the Church of the Nazarene and almost all Pentecostal groups have Methodist backgrounds.

In 1926 the Christian Century ran a most revealing article (May 20, 1926) that is as true today as it was nearly 100 years ago. Titled “What Is Disturbing the Methodists?” the article spoke of tensions in churches because of newer understandings in religious thinking (such as the fundamentalist-modernist controversy). It referred to bishops who championed the new thinking while at the same time trying to keep peace in the church. They did this by denying that there were internal problems and by downplaying issues that might lead to loss of a sense of unity.

According to the article, to understand Methodism it was important to understand Methodism’s ministerial system. Methodist preachers came in three grades. The upper grade (grade one) consisted of bishops, secretaries of agencies, men in seminaries and men who served “big” churches. They were seminary graduates who ruled the denomination. They were also liberal and progressive. Through them the liberal tone of the Sunday school material had advanced beyond that of any other denomination, save, perhaps, the Congregationalists.

Grade two clergy were those who aspired to be grade one. They served the middle-sized churches and probably came into the conference by the Course of Study route. Grade three, or the low grade, consisted of men with limited education who served churches with the slimmest of resources. They were lay pastors and pastors of churches in rural areas. Their numbers were not small. Thirty-five hundred of these low-grade pastors had not passed the seventh grade. Four thousand of these pastors made up the bulk of Methodist ministry. The article implied a divide in the church that was not only doctrinal but political and social and even moral. It was between traditional thinking and progressive thinking, between educated and uneducated, between the sophisticated and the unsophisticated.

Things have not changed much. Today’s grade one clergy operate the seminaries and the boards and agencies and dominate the episcopacy. They tell us one size of church school material fits all, that many evangelical seminaries do not fit progressive standards required to be approved to train UM ministers, that new truth and new understandings render historic teaching on human sexuality as outdated, that if the Discipline teaches otherwise it is to be resisted, and that those who disagree with their interpretations are undermining the unity of the church.

Some grade two and three clergy may be liberal but generally are more apt to be more conservative in their understanding of Scripture and the church’s place in society today. Some serve large churches, but many serve in small towns and rural areas. Some are part-time pastors; some are lay pastors. Many have found alternate ways of supporting one another and resourcing their churches.

In 1970, several of us organized the North Indiana Evangelical Fellowship. We had been inspired by the formation of the Good News organization, but, at least at first, we did not intend to be “political.” We wanted a fellowship group where we could speak our evangelical language and share our evangelical concerns. We wanted space where we could lift our hands and say “amen” and sing gospel choruses and speak of the blood of Jesus and the return of the Lord and revivals and “praying through.”

My own inspiration had come in part by the kind of people who attended the Sunday love feast at annual conference, namely, grade two and three pastors who shared war stories and accounts of revivals. Our Evangelical Fellowship gathered every other month; we sponsored a “mini-convo” based on the Good News convocations. After a while we were asked by the conference leadership to be responsible for the early morning Prayer and Share time at annual conference.

In 1983, I was appointed as a district superintendent by Bishop Jim Armstrong, a leading liberal voice in the denomination but who was forthright in saying we needed diversity in the “good ole boys club,” which at that time dominated the conference. The year before I came to the district three churches in the district had split. I was determined that would not happen again. I met every year with the pastor-parish committee of every church. I preached revivals, sang cantatas in a couple of church choirs, attended pot-lucks, and was even asked to speak at a mother and daughter banquet.

I became keenly aware that a number of churches were asking for  “conservative” pastors. I do not recall a single instance where a church requested a “more liberal” pastor. By this time I was elected to General Conference, I told my churches I saw myself not as a ”delegate” but as a “representative” (one who would represent the concerns of those who elected me). Of course, I was aware that my convictions were very similar to those of my district. In seven of my first nine charge conferences questions and concerns were raised about the “Inclusive Language Lectionary,” published by the National Council of Churches, and an issue at that time. I told the churches I would forward their concerns to those responsible for the lectionary. I discovered at that time that agencies were much more apt to respond to letters on district stationery than to letters on local church stationery.

My fellow superintendents were wonderful and capable persons but I remember some rather curious cabinet meetings when we were discussing pastors who were suited to serve churches wanting a conservative or evangelical pastor. Part of the problem was interpreting the language used by churches. A larger problem was whether the superintendents really understood not only the pastors they were appointing but the churches they were appointing them to. This, I would argue, became more of a problem in later years when superintendents were being chosen for diversity reasons who did not have the experience in the conference as other persons. But an even greater problem was the conference merger (supposedly for reasons of efficiency) which made it even more difficult for superintendents to know their churches and their pastors.

Later, in the years 1992-1995, Roger Finke, the religious sociologist who co-authored the book The Churching of America, 1776-1990: Winners and Losers in Our Religious Economy (Stark and Finke, Rutgers University Press, 1994) became interested in our Evangelical Fellowship and agreed to do a study of North Indiana UM Churches. He used the mailing list of our Evangelical Fellowship and compared the churches and pastors on the list with all the churches of the conference. The results? Of 568 conference pastors, 21%, or 121 were on the Evangelical Fellowship mailing list. Between 1993 and 1995, churches pastored by those on the list increased their worship attendance by an average of 4.5%. At the same time churches served by pastors not on the list had a decrease of attendance by 1.3%.

Things have changed a great deal in the last 30 years, and not necessarily for the better. In the last few years studies have indicated that the percent of the American population identifying as mainline Protestant has fallen from something like 19% to something like 14%. Evangelical churches have declined too, but not to that extent. Depending on the studies the evangelical percentage of Americans is somewhere between 25% and 29%. This usually refers to “white” evangelicals. The percentage of blacks and other ethnic groups, most of whom would be considered “evangelical,” has remained constant. UMs have been hurt not only by the disruptions caused by COVID-19 but, more especially, by disaffiliation controversies. Unfortunately, few denominational leaders seem willing to learn from the changes and trends covered in this article.

Still, some of us, even in the midst of division and disaffiliation, are staying with our mainline denominations because we want to encourage others who are staying (some without a choice) and we still pray for renewal within the churches we have loved and given ourselves to all of our lives.

More on this in Confessions of a Maverick, Part II.

It can be viewed here.