I don’t need to write a new GetReligion post about this week’s “Crossroads,” do I?
After all, this podcast conversation with host Todd Wilken (click here to tune that in) focuses on why United Methodists on the doctrinal left and right, as well as establishment players in the middle, are now bracing for divorce. In one form or another, I’ve been writing this post since the early 1980s.
What we need is a time machine (I’m a big fan of Doctor Who No. 4) so that I could let readers bounce around in United Methodist history and see why all those new headlines about a proposed plan to break-up this complicated church need to be linked to trends and events in the past.
So here we go. Stop No. 1 in this time-travel adventure is Denver, in the year 1980 (care of a GetReligion post with this headline: “United Methodism doctrine? Think location, location, location”).
… It was in 1980 — note that this was one-third of a century ago — that Bishop Melvin Wheatley, Jr., of the Rocky Mountain Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church announced … he was openly rejecting his church’s teaching that homosexual acts were “incompatible with Christian teaching.”
Two years later, this United Methodist bishop appointed an openly gay pastor to an urban church in Denver. When challenged, Wheatley declared: “Homosexuality is a mysterious gift of God’s grace. I clearly do not believe homosexuality is a sin.”
This date is crucial, because it underlines the fact that the United Methodist Church’s doctrine that homosexual acts are “incompatible with Christian teaching” has been on the books for decades.
That’s why the following passage — from the New York Times a few days ago — is so misleading. The wording here gives the average reader the impression that this doctrine is something that conservatives pulled out of their hats in 2019. This Times report stated that a global split has been:
“… widely seen as likely after a contentious general conference in St. Louis last February, when 53 percent of church leaders and lay members voted to tighten the ban on same-sex marriage, declaring that “the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching.”
Yes, it is accurate to say that a global coalition of evangelical Methodists — a minority in the American church, working with leaders of the rapidly growing churches of Asia, Africa and the Global South — won key votes to “tighten the ban” on rites celebrating same-sex marriages and the ordination of noncelibate LGBTQ clergy. It is inaccurate to say that this was when the bans were approved or when the “incompatible with Christian teaching” language was first approved.
You see, UMC leaders on the left were already rebelling against that doctrine back in the late 1970s. This doctrine was not “declared” last February in St. Louis.
Our next stop is Duke University in 1985, when sociologist Robert Wilson and theologian William Willimon wrote a paper called “The Seven Churches of Methodism” that focused on denominational life in seven U.S. regions between 1970-82, including church-school statistics that suggested future problems with active members and the young.
The key: United Methodism was already divided at that time, with it’s leaders tensely gathered under one “connectional” tent, even though they had radically different beliefs on crucial issues linked to scriptures, marriage, salvation and the practice of the faith.
In parts of America, some UMC leaders were already claiming the “freedom of John Wesley” as a justification for making doctrinal changes that their movement’s founder — according to his writings — would have rejected. Wesley called his fellow Anglicans back to the basics of traditional Christianity. Meanwhile, on the right, some Methodists were starting to act like evangelical megachurch pastors, in terms of how they did their worship and work.
Stop and look at the map at the top of this post. See the five American conferences that remain alive? By the way, those USA membership numbers have not been improving, especially in the Northeast, the Rust Belt and out West.
Look at those conference names and statistics, then read my rather long summary of “The Seven Churches of Methodism,” covering trends already established in the 1970s and early 1980s:
* The Yankee Church in New England was already declining rapidly, including a disturbing 48.5 percent drop in church-school numbers. Feminism and social-gospel trends were gaining strength – with one minister’s ordination delayed by his refusal to use gender-neutral terms for God.
* The Industrial Northeastern Church saw a rapid decline in its famous urban churches after World War II. Then church-school attendance fell 53 percent between 1970-82. This progressive region retained its clout in national boards and agencies, with some leaders claiming, “We may be getting smaller, but we’re getting better.” Wilson and Willimon noted: “There is no empirical evidence” of that.
* The Church South remained “traditional in theology and style,” to the point that many clergy still thought “people need to be converted” to Christianity. Some held “revival” meetings, as well as the Sunday night and Wednesday night services once common in Methodism. Statistics remained stable, with attendance twice that of any other region.
* The Southwest Church was the only region in which membership grew, while church-school numbers fell 20.3 percent. “The contrast in expectations between some congregations in Texas and in New England are so great that it is hard to believe they are in the same denomination,” wrote Wilson and Willimon.
* The Midwest Church remained “Methodism’s heartland.” But church-school numbers fell 36 percent, especially in urban areas, while churches at the “grassroots” remained strong. Leaders were already projecting an “image of being avant-garde.”
* The Frontier Church in the Rockies became a haven for many clergy migrating away from eastern pulpits and would soon emerge as ground zero for LGBTQ activism. Church attendance was small, but steady, while church-school stats fell 42.7 percent.
* The Western Church was “an enigma,” with crucial statistics falling while total population on the West Coast soared. Church-school numbers dropped 50.1 percent between 1970-82, even as the region’s leaders provided national leadership on the cultural and doctrinal left.
Now, let’s jump to the present. Please click here to see a list of official United Methodist seminaries. Where are they on a map?
Well, most of them are in doctrinally progressive parts of the “seven churches” or located on deep blue (in terms of social issues and doctrine) campuses in places like Dallas or Atlanta. In this context, the divinity school at Duke University is almost “conservative” or “centrist.”
Why focus on seminaries? Well, because they produce clergy and the leaders who run denominational structures. That’s why. Seminaries train the establishment.
Thus, here is the big question of 2020: Why are United Methodists traditionalists in America and the Global South preparing to surrender the agencies and seminaries that are at the heart of their denomination?
The bottom line: activists on the doctrinal right know that there is no way to convert or seize structures that have been working against them for 40-plus years.
Meanwhile, some activists in the establishment center-left and the far left have to know that the conservatives do have the growing numbers — especially overseas — on their side, when it comes to evangelism and birthrates.
Thus, a few leaders from the left, right and the establishment center appear to have decided that it isn’t in anyone’s interest — in terms of lawsuits, finances and getting on with their ministry goals — to keep fighting in hand-to-hand combat for another 40 years or so.
The evangelicals, in other words, will let the left keep the bureaucracies and — oh yeah — to pay the bills required to keep all those agencies and tiny seminaries open. They have, in particular, paid close attention to the bloody details in decades of Episcopalians vs. Anglican wars in North America. Like I said in a post the other day:
… (If) the conservatives have been winning the big votes at United Methodist conferences for the past couple of decades, then why are news reports saying that the traditionalists have agreed to “leave the United Methodist Church”?
This is the response that popped into my head … after a round of news reports, Twitter and online buzz: Basically, I think conservative Methodists have been visited by the Ghost of the Episcopal Future.
What journalists have to realize, however, is that all of these global and national wars are about to get LOCAL, with local church leaders deciding — on 50-50 votes — which of the new-old denominational structures that they will join.
What’s at stake? Control of their beloved local churches. That’s all.
Enjoy the podcast. Also, check out this Gospel Coalition website FAQ about the proposed plan by former GetReligionista Joe Carter.
ybvdadminuser
