UNITY AND INSTITUTIONALISM
By Dr. Riley Case
Leaders in the United Methodist church are continuing to discuss and negotiate ways that United Methodism can best serve the Church of Jesus Christ in the months and years ahead. There is an attempt to find some consensus on various ways forward that will be presented to the next General Conference in May, 2020. The following is an attempt to clarify some realities that must be taken into consideration as decisions are made about the UM future.
The kind of unity described in the New Testament is quite different from much of that advocated by the institutional church.
Many of us believe our church leaders are understanding “unity” as denominational institutionalism instead of the New Testament unity of oneness in Christ based on a commitment to shared beliefs and values.
I have been a part of Methodism’s evangelical renewal efforts for over 50 years. I responded to Chuck Keysor’s original article in the
Christian Advocate
in July 1966. That article would launch the Good News Movement. The institutional church at that time saw evangelicalism (always labeled then as “fundamentalism”) as a dying relic of the past and basically refused to take evangelicals very seriously. Keysor (and others), very much aware of the evangelical ferment of the times, understood that evangelicalism not only was not dying but instead was the future for Protestantism in America and, for that matter, across the globe. Originally, Methodism in the New World defined the American form of evangelicalism. A great part of Methodism has always been faithful to that original vision. The goals of Good News at that time were quite modest: recognition of the evangelical world and of evangelicals and the contribution they could make as the church moved into the EUB merger and the forming of a new United Methodist Church.
While a number of church leaders in the late 1960s gave guarded encouragement to the new evangelical movement, others had concerns. Their concerns were about “divisiveness.” The church needed support, not dissension. Politically the nation had passed through the Joe McCarthy era and some were thinking evangelicals (“fundamentalists”) might introduce an era of religious witch-hunts.
This issue was addressed by the
United Methodist Reporter
which, as an independent UM-related news outlet, was itself sometimes criticized for not being supportive enough of the denominational agenda. In an editorial (9-24-1970) the editor, Spurgeon Dunnam, wrote:
... A
re evangelicals a divisive force within the church? Yes, they are divisive. Divisive in the same way as Jesus was divisive to first century Judaism. Divisive in the same way Martin Luther was to sixteenth century Catholicism. Divisive in the same way that John Wesley was to eighteenth century Anglicanism. And, strangely enough, divisive in the same way that many liberal "church renewalists" are to Methodism in our own day. A survey of Methodism in America today reveals these basic thrusts. One is devoted primarily to the status quo. To these, the institution called Methodism is given first priority. It must be protected at all costs from any threats of change from any direction...
Dunnam understood that the greatest tension in the church was not evangelicals versus the social activists, but evangelicals and social activists versus the status quo institutionalists. It is curious that for the past fifty years a major criticism of evangelical renewal groups is that they are divisive, meaning among other things, that their support of the major vision of Methodism (“You have nothing to do but save souls”) sometimes places them at odds with United Methodist institutional revisionism.
In our present day there is discussion over the church’s stand on sexual morality. The “status quo” is the position called “compatibilist,” a position that identifies those who, regardless of how they feel about the practice of homosexuality, believe that it is a minor issue as far as church values are concerned. They also believe that, for the sake of “unity” (read “status quo institutionalism”), the church should be more inclusive and open-minded so that we might move forward as one big happy family. Unfortunately, we have not for some time been living as one big happy family. We have such different understandings of what UM doctrine and moral life is that we often cannot even carry on intelligent conversation. But the “big happy family” position is that advanced by the “centrists,” the “Mainstream UMs,” and the American bishops and the boards and agencies. “Unity” is living under an institutional big tent. That was the approach of the disastrous One Church Plan, evidently the only plan the many of the bishops and centrists would seriously consider as a way forward before the 2019 General Conference. The plan called for doing away with all negative references in the
Discipline
to homosexual practice, letting everyone live as they pleased and maintaining the institutional status quo complete with the present Council of Bishops, the boards and agencies and the seminaries being able to carry on as usual.
One historical reference. In the 1840s, when the issue was slavery, the divisive troublemakers were the abolitionists who in our day would be labeled “incompatibilists.” They (and others) dared to bring petitions to the 1844 General Conference to force bishops and the church to follow the
Discipline
in regard to slaveholders. At the time the bishops, always the “compatibilists,” would not even discipline one of their own who was a slaveholder. The bishops, ever seeking ways to hold the church together, urged more study and more discussion. Their position was basically an 1840s version of the One Church Plan.
Reality check:
the status quo is not working
. Doesn’t the loss of 5 million American UM members in the last 50 years tell us anything? Any “Way Forward” must allow for expressions of Biblical unity based on shared values and beliefs.
Social institutionalism in America as an important expression of societal cohesiveness has been in decline for several decades.
Surely it is being observed that social clubs, organizations and institutions which, until recently, provided societal cohesiveness for many people, are having a rough time of it. Fraternal organizations like the Masons and Eastern Star, service organizations like Rotary as well as established institutional churches have been declining. Denominational labels no longer inspire loyalty. Within Protestantism many growing local churches have de-emphasized denominational labels. Baptist churches are self-identifying as “community churches.” Often these groups don’t even use the word “church.” They are “Abundant Life Ministries” or “Worship Centers.” When UM churches have de-emphasized the “Methodist” brand name they have come under criticism from institutionalists who believe that de-emphasizing the word “Methodist” is a form of disloyalty. And yet our parishioners these days change churches for the slightest of reasons and have less brand loyalty than ever before.
Interestingly, this phenomenon is not so evident outside the US. African churches and churches in the Philippines believe that the UM cross and flame communicates that which is good in religion. They have indicated they do not want to give up the denominational label. At this point a lot of conversation needs to take place.
In addition to the fact that the church is hopelessly divided and that institutional “unity” (loyalty) simply is not working the way it once did, at least in America, it should be evident that the time is ripe in United Methodism for the possibility of real renewal. No matter what our theology we need new structures, new visions and new ways of being in ministry together. For progressives perhaps this is a time for freedom to revise a new set of doctrinal standards (or perhaps for affirming the absence of any standards) that they can in good conscience support. While evangelicals would see no need in any revised standards (we are committed to these as they are), there would be interest in new institutional structures. There would be interest in designated giving, in initiating programs from the bottom up instead of from the top down, and for allowing churches to use resources that may have been developed outside the denominational structures. This would be possible if the denomination were able to allow realignment and the opportunity to start afresh. According to the survey done by Mainstream UMs, only 17% of evangelicals presently hold a favorable view of the boards and agencies. This is no way to run a church. Many in the church, including those same centrists and progressives, understand this.
Since the 2019 General Conference there has been willingness to talk seriously about some form of amicable separation. This would offer an opportunity to open the doors of change for new expressions of the Spirit of God
