Archive: Why I Stay within the UM Church

by Marti Bennett, Homemaker and UM Layperson Durham, North Carolina

As I considered joining the million or so Methodists who have exited before me, I began visiting (early service!) another denomination. This other denomination does not pulpit-pound hell-fire and damnation, but it does proclaim with profound certainty and dignity that there is sin, that I am afflicted with it, that I cannot avoid repentance by denying sin’s existence, that I am accountable—and whether or not I like it is entirely beside the point. Always balancing this proclamation is the equally profound and clear reassurance of a Redeemer who is worthy of the name.

In short, I have come face to face with a proclamation—without apology—of Law and Gospel. This seemed wistfully reminiscent. I re-read Romans and then I re-read John Wesley and then Albert Outler. To my amazement—I am a Methodist! However, I do have a problem: the United Methodist Church is not Methodist!

It seems John Wesley had a few ideas on sin himself. In fact, he went so far as to say that sin is the fundamental point which “differences Heathenism from Christianity” and that if you denied it “you were but a Heathen still.” Wesley went on to say that it was absurd to “offer a Physician to them that are whole—or at least imagine themselves to be … you are first to convince them that they are sick.”

Amazing to me that the Methodist clergy have not picked up on that! It seems to me we are getting more and more of the gospel that is no-gospel as stated by Richard Niebuhr: “A God without wrath who brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.” Can’t be done. But we seem to have a bunch of people trying!

Also, Outler is saying that the UM Church has moved so far to the “I’m O.K., You’re O.K. syndrome,” that we are dangerously close to, or have already embraced, the Pelagian heresy.[1] There seems to be more concern about this among the laity than among the clergy.

I have tried to figure out why this should be and then concluded that the liberal minister has a lot going for him. He does not rock the proverbial boat. The minister himself is in a tight political bind. (The layman is no fool—he understands that the minister knows a steady boat looks best on the records.) The liberal minister also tries to keep us comfortable. So we hear: “There is no real sin to worry about.” Or at least if there is, we’ll get it all out of the way in the Prayer of Confession. “There is no hell—so don’t worry about it.” We are all O.K., just different opinions. We do not have to take the Law seriously and can thereby avoid any radical change or commitment in our lives. We can be made whole by self-acceptance and self-realization through meaningful encounters and peak experiences. If we run into any trouble, be assured there are workshops and self-help kits available, complete with sub-numbers and sub-letters “ad nauseam. “It is all O.K. as long as we are comfortable,” says the liberal minister.

That is nice, but it just doesn’t work. As Outler says, there is just enough truth in that to make it a formidable lie.

It does not work because I am not O.K.; many of my friends are not O.K.; The United Methodist Church, in my opinion, is not O.K.! It is like trying to cure pneumonia with talcum powder. We are comforted for a while, but then the fever will win out. If we continue to insist on comfort and talc, then we die. We need radical treatment, unpleasant though it may be. For us to be truly O.K., the sinner must be called upon to repent. It is at this point, and only at this point, that the Gospel can work with its freedom and joy and vitality and assurance! It can’t and won’t work the other way around. Oh well–I have to be honest–I believe that Wesley did say that it just might work “one time out of a thousand—maybe.”

We have tension all right: between the liberals and the fundamentalists, between Good News and Methodist Federation for Social Action, and between the Biblicists and the form critics. However, the tension is in the wrong place. There must always be tension to effect change. If I recall my theology correctly, the tension should come between the Law and the Gospel. This is next to impossible these days since Law is being preached in very few places. No wonder anxiety exists. We are denying the fact that we are desperately ill and then wonder why we don’t get well. The church is trying to make us feel better without first making us well. Redemption cannot work without repentance.

I am called negative or judgmental when I mention the reality of sin. I am countered with: “Oh, but we must smile and be positive. Oh, you take yourself too seriously. Oh, we have to try new things. Oh, but we must do it this way—it works!” So does castor oil.

I cannot sit quietly watching millions leave the United Methodist Church, then hearing our leaders say, “O.K., let’s spend another few thousand for new brochures, new kits, new quadrennium slogans, more workshops, and see if we can’t find a solution to this thing.” We have the solution. The solution is Christ! We need to affirm Him, but the Gospel must be presented in the context of the problem He came to deal with—sin.

The UM Church is ready for what Outler calls the Third Great Awakening. I wonder if it must come from the laity rather than the clergy. I used to look askance at the congregation which always stirred up trouble with the district superintendent and the bishop asking for a “good preacher” who could meet their needs. Could this not be the way it must begin? The layman is beginning to be aware of his deep and desperate sickness—and this whether or not the clergy is brave enough to call it by its real name—sin. The layman is awakening to the knowledge that his health and his cure and his life depend upon a legitimate understanding of the disease—sin.

More and more we are uncomfortable with the “comfort” gospel of the liberals. I think that it is time to raise a holy indignation until we are sent clergy with the courage to preach the Gospel. If this pressure from the laity drives district superintendents and bishops and deans of seminaries crazy—so be it.

The alternative is infinitely and eternally worse. Even if the clergy do not believe in hell—I do. To paraphrase John Donne (he was no slack preacher himself!) hundreds of years ago: “When ye die and hills melt and flames lick at ye—what will ye then? Repent? Too late! Too late!” I was going to slip quietly away with the other million or so ex-Methodists, but I have discovered that I am a Methodist. I love the Wesleyan tradition of theology and evangelism, but I am disheartened at not finding much of it in the United Methodist system. I dream with Outler of a Third Great Awakening led by a courageous clergy. The laymen are waiting—but not too patiently

[1] Pelagian, a 4th century British monk, denied the doctrine of original sin. The free will of man, he maintained, was the same as Adams before the fall, capable of choosing good or evil. Wesley, on the other hand, stated that since the fall, the moral image of God in man had been marred, carried down through all mankind, for all were in the loins of Adam when he sinned. In his writings, Wesley characterized the transmission of original sin as a disease. His emphasis was on the fact that this is true and not on how this is true; it is a matter of faith about a doctrine discerned from Biblical evidence. Thus, man is only “free” to do evil, not good; man is not even able to will good on his own, only by the grace of God (prevenient grace) available to all.