Methodists

[Contarini]

I’ve been off the forum for a long time, but I lurk occasionally and there was so much misunderstanding of the Methodist situation on this thread that I felt the need to comment.

The UMC website someone cited earlier is misleading. (This is not surprising–the denominational agencies are still more likely to be controlled by more liberal folks.) While it’s certainly true that Methodists disagree about homosexuality, the website implied that that’s all there is–an agreement to disagree. Actually the Book of Discipline, which is the official standard for UM teachings and policies, says that the practice of homosexuality is “contrary to Christian discipleship” and that “self-avowed practicing homosexuals” cannot be ordained. The “progressive” wing of the denomination wants very badly to change this, but the conservatives have a majority in General Conference, and this majority grows each time the Conference meets. This is largely because of the Africans and other non-U.S. segments of the denomination, but also because even within the U.S. it tends to be the more evangelical parts of the denomination that are growing (though there are also some thriving younger congregations that are progressive socially while not necessarily being theologically liberal in the old-fashioned sense). The progressives have resorted to civil disobedience tactics, making it hard for General Conference to do its work. There is growing talk about either splitting the denomination entirely or re-creating a non-geographical “jurisdiction” system in which the progressives and conservatives could basically do their own thing while retaining some connection through the denominational structures. (There’s a lot of sensitivity about that, because at one time there was such a a system based on race.) Some of the conservatives want to push harder, imposing “minimum penalties” (because as it stands, when partnered gay clergy or bishops who ordain them are brought up on charges, they are often given a slap on the wrist) or even an automatic penalty system that would make church trials unnecessary for this particular offense.

People keep speaking as if the UMC were becoming more liberal, when exactly the opposite is the case. My progressive UM friends are very discouraged and beginning to talk about leaving.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

I’ve been off the forum for a long time …

You need to cut that out.

 

[commenter]

I’ve been off the forum for a long time,

It’s a slippery slope, once Christians start neglecting their internet duties for prayer, scripture, acts of mercy, and other distractions.

(This is not surprising–the denominational agencies are still more likely to be controlled by more liberal folks.)

Even though people point out there are growing numbers of “conservatives” from Africa, and - perhaps - from certain parts of the US, the reality is that “progressives” with money, and access to the media, have wielded in most denominations power far out of proportion to their numbers. Having a friendly reporter from RNS or the NY Times helps them frame the agenda as “liberal vs conservative”, rather than “orthodoxy vs modernism”, which is more accurate.

While it’s certainly true that Methodists disagree about homosexuality, the website implied that that’s all there is–an agreement to disagree… The progressives have resorted to civil disobedience tactics, making it hard for General Conference to do its work…

Even if the orthodox Christians appear to win some victories at the Conference, it is the day to day bureaucracy that can blunt implementation. It is the modernist bureaucracy and seminaries that will shape pastoral and religious education, so that what is normal gospel living in one generation gets rebranded as “extreme conservatism” in the next generation; and what once was anti-Christian behavior yesterday gets redefined as “pastoral” or “compassionate” tomorrow.

People keep speaking as if the UMC were becoming more liberal, when exactly the opposite is the case.

Either that, or the Media keeps re-drawing the boundaries, and we all more or less, unconsciously keep accepting their redefinitions.

 

[Contarini]

Even though people point out there are growing numbers of “conservatives” from Africa, and - perhaps - from certain parts of the US, the reality is that “progressives” with money, and access to the media, have wielded in most denominations power far out of proportion to their numbers. Having a friendly reporter from RNS or the NY Times helps them frame the agenda as “liberal vs conservative”, rather than “orthodoxy vs modernism”, which is more accurate.

Liberal vs. conservative is a neutral way to put it.

“Orthodoxy” implies a theological judgment.

Do you really want the secular media making theological judgments about which variety of Christianity is more correct?

And I agree with Ephraim Radner that Protestants have no business claiming to be “orthodox” (he would say no one does, but I won’t argue that). He argues for “conservative” as a more appropriate and modest term in a divided Church. (He is himself a conservative Anglican.)

Even if the orthodox Christians appear to win some victories at the Conference, it is the day to day bureaucracy that can blunt implementation. It is the modernist bureaucracy and seminaries that will shape pastoral and religious education, so that what is normal gospel living in one generation gets rebranded as “extreme conservatism” in the next generation; and what once was anti-Christian behavior yesterday gets redefined as “pastoral” or “compassionate” tomorrow.

Either that, or the Media keeps re-drawing the boundaries, and we all more or less, unconsciously keep accepting their redefinitions.

Nope. That is not what is happening, except on sexuality, which dominates the media.

On basic creedal issues Methodists are, by and large, far more orthodox or conservative or whatever than they were 20 or 50 or 100 years ago, it seems to me.

Even the “progressives” that I know believe strongly in the death and resurrection of Jesus, in the importance of the sacraments, in the need to wrestle seriously with Scripture and the limitations of a purely historical-critical approach. They’re a different bunch altogether than oldline liberals who explained away key teachings of the Faith. Not that the “old-fashioned” liberals have vanished, but they have lost a lot of their power.

Two UM seminaries–Duke and United–are dominated by people who are deeply committed to creedal orthodoxy. United seems to have been taken over by Pentecostals, in fact (some of whom are my friends).

And of course Asbury Theological Seminary has been pumping out tons of clergy for the past 100 years, and has radically transformed the face of Methodism by so doing.

Years ago, back at the beginning of the millennium, a liberal Methodist pastor told me that he was leaving because “the Asburyites” were winning. And I hear this more and more from liberal Methodists.

Conservatives are deeply wedded to a narrative of decline. It’s what energizes them. If everybody on earth was a conservative Christian except for one person, we’d be hearing about what a grave threat that one person was and how he was corrupting everybody and trying to persecute us.

Edwin