More than half my professional life is over! I began my ministry thirty-one years ago and for most of those years I have been part of a declining denomination. I have served alongside thousands of clergy and millions of laity who have done all they know to do to try and turn things around. Today, however, our denominational malaise has sunk to an all-time low. Our numbers continue to erode. Our leaders appear unable to agree concerning the nature of the crisis; some still live in denial that there even is one. Our laity grown increasingly restless and our clergy express discouragement. United Methodism is at a crossroads.
Bishop Dan E. Solomon recently wrote a column for The United Methodist Reporter in which he both openly declares his commitment to evangelical Christianity and acknowledges that there is a "profound frustration" in United Methodism. At the same time, he denies there is division in the church.
In one sense, I applaud his words. He has, in effect, described me. I know feelings of "profound frustration," all the while remaining within the United Methodist Church. But in all honesty, I believe Bishop Solomon has underestimated the potential for division contained in the frustration. Innumerable frustrated people have already separated themselves from our denomination; others surely will in the future unless we forthrightly profess classical Christianity in the Wesleyan tradition. The profound frustration of which the bishop speaks is not as neutral or passive, as many would have us believe. United Methodism is at a crossroads.
Standing before an uncertain and frustrating future, evangelicals have expressed their concerns. To be sure, some have gone off half-cocked and traded in the fruit of the Spirit for sub-Christian attitudes. A few have inappropriately used the recent "Re-Imagining" Conference to vent longstanding frustrations and prejudices. Some have spoken out before they had their facts straight. None of this helps us deal responsibly with the critical issues. But such mistakes should not be used to hide the reality of the crisis nor be allowed to eclipse legitimate critique. United Methodism is at a crossroads.
Confessions
Evangelicals are not outside the problems we see in the UM Church. In some quarters, ultra-conservative theology and accompanying legalism has caused some theological radicals to believe that traditional Christianity is inadequate. How unfortunate for anyone to conclude that they need to move "beyond" or stand apart from 20 centuries of accepted Christian teaching or the normative documents of their respective denominations.
We must confess that evangelicals sometimes present the message in a judgmental or mean-spirited way that does not exemplify the Spirit. We have spoken too much and listened too little. We have evaluated others with a precision we were not willing to apply to ourselves. When that is the case, we become part of the problem, or at least we create conditions which cause others to reject classical Christian teaching. To deny this is to claim a righteousness we do not possess. The crisis in the UM Church is now so large it can only be rightly called "our" problem.
Furthermore, we have not made adequate distinctions between the legitimate concerns of others and the comparatively small number of theological radicals who use these concerns as a platform to promote their own secondary agendas. This is particularly true with regard to our sisters in Christ. By viewing all women and their concerns as one in the same, we leave the pains and issues related to women unaddressed. We mistakenly make them all appear to be cut from the same cloth. Until we can cull the wheat from the chaff, we are not likely to receive support from many women who would otherwise celebrate orthodox faith in a milieu which affirms them and addresses their needs.
From another point of view, we also observe that the theological radicals have painted evangelicals with too broad a brush. They have lumped all of us together, using inaccurate, inappropriate, and belittling terms. The current crisis in the church is not being initiated by the conservatives. It is not a witch hunt being carried out by "homophobic" or "femi-phobic" people. It is not about protecting or preserving patriarchal turf. It is not an effort to force everyone to believe exactly alike. It is not an exercise in scare tactics or crying "the sky is falling" in fairytale fashion. These mischaracterizations minimize the crisis and deflect the attention of the church away from its dilemma.
Confessions of shortcomings on both sides of the fence serve to remind us that the spirit of our concern is as important as the substance. We cannot enter into dialogue and debate unaware of our blind sides.
Caricatures
Unfortunately, caricatures have surfaced which misrepresent the concerns of responsible evangelicals. The setting up of "Straw men" is particularly problematic and misleading. To set the record straight, several issues must be addressed.
First, some have claimed that we are trying to stifle the civil rights of those who have made radical statements in recent months. Let it be said once and for all—civil rights is not the issue. This dilemma is not about "freedom of speech." It is not that people spoke freely at the "Re-Imagining" Conference, for example, but that they spoke in the context of Christianity. Paul Prather, religion editor of the Lexington (Kentucky) Herald-Leader, has said it well, "If you want to pray to Sophia or to trees, that's your choice. More power to you. But why would you bother to call yourself Christian?" The issue is simply not one of civil rights. We are fully capable of distinguishing between civil rights and theological aberration.
Second, some claim that a rejection of women in ministry and/or a refusal to yield to patriarchal control of the church lies behind the evangelical critique. Again, this is simply not true. Yes, there are some conservatives who sincerely do not believe in the ordination of women, but that is totally unrelated to current evangelical concerns. United Methodist evangelical leaders fully affirm the role of women in ministry, including positions of leadership such as district superintendents and bishops. Furthermore, many of us stand solidly with women in recognition that there has often been a "good-old-boy" mentality in the system. As a matter of fact, a number of us have taken the lead in our institutions and annual conferences to see that women are given the full rights and privileges of ministry and leadership. It is an affront to us to be falsely labeled as patriarchal, obscurantist, or femi-phobic.
Third, some have tried to describe the evangelical critique as a narrow, right wing exaggeration and overreaction. To be sure, the ultra-conservatives are up in arms (as we would expect them to be), but the bulk of concern this time is not from the fringes. This time the centrists and moderates have said, "Enough!" This is a crucial distinction which must not be lost. The recent "Consultation on the Future of the United Methodist Church," hosted by Maxie Dunnam, William Cannon and Thomas Oden, is a clear case in point. Nearly one hundred clergy and laity from all five jurisdictions met to assess the problems and propose strategies for renewal. The group, which was invited before the "Re-Imagining" controversy, was intentionally made up of invitees who have proven themselves to be loyal, credible, and responsible United Methodist leaders.
Equally devoted leaders in other denominations have likewise named the crisis for what it is. Writing in the Theology and Culture Newsletter, Dr. Gabriel Fackre, a respected theologian in the United Church of Christ, has rightly noted that in the present crisis, "the Church’s centrists are beginning to find their voice. Faithful to their Church, firmly committed to its struggle for justice and peace, the are nevertheless profoundly troubled by the loss of theological substance and the corresponding growth of ideology." The present dilemma and the resulting expressions of concern simply have nothing to do with narrow, fundamentalist viewpoints.
Fourth, theological radicals have portrayed themselves as facilitating a "new reformation." On this point, they sadly betray their ignorance of church history. There have been true reformations in the past, and there may well be others in the future. But the current crisis is not one of them. A look at church history clearly teaches that true reformation is about the business of recovering a lost orthodoxy, not in "wildly re-imagining" alternative doctrines. The early Church was reformed through the adoption of normative creeds. Martin Luther reformed the church by recovering classic doctrines which had been ignored or reconceptualized in Roman Catholicism. John Wesley reformed the church by developing a movement devoted to "scriptural Christianity." Church history does not reveal a single reformation which forced orthodoxy out and imported a foreign concept of the Christian faith. Today’s theological radicals wear the label "reformer" inaccurately and to their own discredit.
Concerns
The months following the "Re-Imagining" Conference have proliferated the concerns of evangelicals. First and foremost, we are concerned that the normative theological documents of the United Methodist Church have been openly violated by theological radicals. Evangelicals are not out to make the church into our own image. But we do intend to hold United Methodism accountable to what it says it believe within the pages of the Book of Discipline. Such concern is both theologically and sociologically responsible.
Given the precarious natures of our crisis and the cultural captivity of the church in contemporary society, we believe our elected leaders must more proactively use our normative documents to recruit, employ, educate, and hold accountable the clergy and laity who serve the UM Church. All institutions, including the UM Church, have the right to declare their identity and then expect those who voluntarily affiliate to abide by and promote that identity.
Ths is our ultimate concern, and we will not be content while bishops, boards and agencies, or other bureaucrats stonewall, sidestep, or stall in a forthright re-confession of our standards. We perceive that a failure to confront at thistime will only proliferate our crisis and will eventually mean taht the UM Church is hijacked by people who openly and flagrantly stand apart from our Book of Discipline.
United Methodists would rise up in praise if the Council of Bishops, for example, would publicly and officially declare their corporate allegiance to our doctrinal standards—allegiance which includes clear adherence in matters of recritment, ordination, and accountability. This is crucial in such a time as this when our denomination is hearing many voices. We need the clear, distinguishable voice of our elected officials to lead us out of and beyond our dilemma.
Evangelicals are also concerned that cultural ideologies are infiltrating our beliefs and structures and substantially redefining them. Dr. Fackre speaks a relevant word once again, "When cultural forces…i.e. feminism and pluralism—begin to control the content of the Christian faith, then a basic line ahs been crossed and a firm ‘No’ must be said." We are concerned when elements of Spiritism and "new-age" metaphysics are imported into and interwoven with classical Christian doctrines. We do not deny the place of culture in providing insight, but we do not believe contemporary ideologies should be granted power to reshape 20 centuries of orthodox Christianity. In fact, we belive we are meant to submit to normative doctrines in matters of faith and practice rather than asking those doctrines to yield to our contemporary re-interpretations. We are concerned when any persons authorize themselves to stand apart from apostolic succession; wehn they formulate belives which contradict the Christian heritage and our denomination’s best understanding of Christianity in the Wesleyan tradition.
Counsel
There are four facets of counsel I would like to offer as we attempt to deal with the problems. First, remember. Remember that you are not in the minority and you are not an extremist in desiring the UM Church to be faithful to its own published doctrines. Rather than being divisive, you are actually seeking to hold things together as you call the denomination to closer fidelity to its own established standards. At all times maintain the fruit of the Spirit, but do not be intimidated by anyone who would caricature your efforts toward accountability as being inappropriate.
Second, study. The issues before us are complex; they defy simplistic responses. Instead, we are currently challenged to do our homework, to get all the information you can from as many sources as you can. Speak from intelligence, not emotion, and be able to document your concerns, chapter and verse. When you have your evidence in hand, press your case. The present generation of United Methodists is being challenged to fulfill the Great Commandment especially as it pertains to loving God "with our minds."
Third, call for accountability and reform. Do not ask the church to be what you want it to be; ask it to be what it has already said it is in the Book of Discipline. Ask your own bishop, superintendent, Board of Ministry, etc. to verbally affirm loyalty to our normative documents and to back the words with public testimonies and actions. The present crises has moved us beyond merely saying we're in line with our standards. There are times in the life of a church when words must be fortified with action. Today is the day.
Fourth, contribute. Begin your contribution with a strong and definitive reaffirmation of your membership vows: to uphold the church by your prayers, presence, gifts, and service. Recognize that spectators will not renew the church, only involved persons will. Follow that recommitment with a careful examination of the wide range of ministries in the UM Church. Give hearty financial support to those efforts which are in concert with our normative documents. The time is passed when a docile constituency will uncritically give to everything. Instead, let it be known that support will be given to those programs and agencies which unambiguously promote the historical mission and nature of the UM Church. An informed membership is no threat to any part of United Methodism which is faithful to the denomination's standards.
As formidable as the times are, we are not the first Christians to be challenged by persons and forces seeking to redefine the faith. Martin Luther and John Wesley faced similar challenges. The first several centuries of the Christian faith had comparable theological, moral, and ecclesial problems.
Although the present situation is not new, neither is it insignificant. If we take our cue from the true and best reformers of the past, we will know without question that silence is not golden. The problems will not go away on their own. Instead, the church must be challenged to rise to the heights of its own doctrine and practices. If we are willing to do this, we might witness another reformation as dramatic and strategic as any in the history of the Christian faith.
United Methodism is at a crossroads. If we go in one direction, we run the risk of evolving into little more than a "protestantized" version of the B'hai faith which seeks to synthesize the great religions of the world into one religion, granting to them relatively equal value and status. If we choose the other direction, the way of our non-native documents and doctrinal heritage, we may well become a formidable segment of the Body of Christ in a world desperately in need of the gospel. As far as I can see, it doesn't take long to discern which is our best option. May God help us to exercise it!
Steve Harper received his Ph.D. from Duke University in Wesley Studies. Dr. Harper is executive director of A Foundation for Theological Education and founder of Shepherd's Care, a ministry to ministers.
This article was published in Good News (July/August 1994).