How did we get here from there?

by Steve | Mar 5, 2013 | In the News

By Riley B. Case

The greatest revival in religious history was fueled by Methodists in America between 1784 and 1850. This period marked the 66 years after Methodism was formed in this country. During that time, Methodism grew from 2 percent to 33 percent of the religious adherents in America.

In 1850, 12 percent of all  Americans were Methodist. This was accomplished without the benefit of seminaries, or professionalized Sunday schools, and with almost no church bureaucracy. According to the American Almanac in 1837, Congregational seminaries enrolled 234 students, Presbyterians 257, Episcopalians 47, Baptists 107, and Methodists none. Instead, Methodists at the time were organizing camp meetings, composing gospel spirituals, and crisscrossing the country with their system of circuit riders.

Analyzing Methodist spiritual strength in America, Bishop Matthew Simpson wrote A Hundred Years of Methodism in 1876. Simpson was known at the time as Mr. Methodist. Converted at age 18 at a camp meeting, Simpson felt called to preach and was on a circuit at age 23, became a college president (Indiana Asbury) at age 28, elected editor of Western Christian Advocate at age 37, and elected to the episcopacy at age 41. Simpson fought against slavery and alcohol, was a friend of Abraham Lincoln (and preached his funeral sermon), and lobbied four different presidents for Methodist presence in government. He served as a bishop for thirty-two years.

According to Simpson, Methodist growth and influence could be summed up by three factors: Methodism’s doctrines, its piety and zeal, and its system of government. Simpson referred to the Articles of Religion for doctrine, the General Rules for moral purity, and the conferences for system of government.

Simpson summarized Methodism’s doctrine as follows:

“Its creed may be styled evangelical Arminian. It teaches the natural depravity of the human heart; the atonement made by the Lord Jesus Christ as a sufficient sacrifice for the sins of the whole world; that salvation is offered to every individual on conditions of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ; that a man is justified by faith alone, but that good works follow and flow from a living faith. It teaches that every believer may have the witness of the Spirit attesting his sonship, and insists upon ‘following after holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.’”

On zeal and moral purity Simpson said:

“…its success has not been owing to any lowering of the moral standard, or catering to the tastes or prejudices of society. The voice of the Church has been clearly heard in the denunciation of vice in every form….It sacrificed in many instances the favor of wealth and influence rather than to forbear its testimony.”

What has happened? 

How did we get from there, from the Methodism of Bishop Simpson, to where we are today? Instead of 12 percent of the American population, United Methodism today counts 3 percent of Americans as United Methodist (and this after the EUB merger). In 1890, Methodism claimed 7.1 million members, almost as many as today, when the population was only a fifth of what it is today.

Methodism’s “piety and zeal,” especially for the saving of souls, has waned, and the moral witness hardly exists. This is no better illustrated than by the accusation that the church’s stance on sexuality in the Discipline is “immoral and unjust and no longer deserving of our loyalty and obedience” (Bishop Melvin Talbert). The immoral and unjust stance Talbert objects to is the church’s traditional stand of faithfulness in marriage and celibacy in singleness. Simpson’s term for this compromise is “catering to the tastes or prejudices of society.”

In church government, the Call to Action recommendations, with modest proposals for reform and revitalization, after several years of study, $500,000 spent on expenses, and untold hours of discussion, failed spectacularly at General Conference, due, among other things, to the inability of United Methodists to think and work together.

The straight answer to what has happened is that Methodism has for a long time been compromising its core beliefs and values. This is not something that has just happened recently but has been going on for over one hundred years.  This has not been like a tire blow out, but like a long, slow leak.

Modernism’s denials 

Even during Simpson’s time, the attacks on the core beliefs of Christian faith were being launched. Those who did not want the Methodism of Bishop Simpson, who believed that to be credible in a modern world, the beliefs of the church would have to change, were called modernists. Modernists started with a denial of Original Sin. John Wesley had stated that the whole Christian Gospel rested on the assumption that all are born in sin and that the person who denied Original Sin was not a Christian.

No matter. Horace Bushnell, a Congregational minister, was teaching even before the Civil War that children did not have to be taught they were sinners before they could become Christians. A child could grow up and never imagine anything but that he or she had always been a Christian. This theory, when taken to its logical conclusion, cut the heart out of Wesleyan doctrine. If persons can always have been Christians there is no need for the Atonement, Repentance, or the New Birth.

Modernists could not change the stated doctrine of the Church, which was protected by constitutional law, but where they could make changes, they did. The section, “Depravity,” always a part of Methodist hymnals, was deleted in the 1905 hymnal. In 1910, the M.E. Church South omitted words in the baptismal ritual that said “For as much as all men are conceived and born in sin, and that our Savior Christ saith, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,” and replaced these words in the ritual: “Forasmuch as God in his great mercy hath entered into covenant relations with man, wherein he hath included children as partakers of its gracious benefits….” This was further diluted so that by 1932 the ritual said: “Forasmuch as all children are members of the kingdom of God….”

This is significant. The Church went from believing all have been born in sin to believing that we are all members of the Kingdom. No wonder we today have the ideology of “Inclusivism,” the approach that since all are already members of the Kingdom there is little interest in talking about Original Sin, Atonement, Repentance, Redemption, Salvation. Under this ideology, beliefs, practices, and standards do not matter. Neither pastors nor church boards nor the Discipline can make a judgment on a person’s readiness for church membership, or a person’s salvation, if one can even talk about salvation.

The Holy Scriptures

By 1920, new members were no longer required to respond to the question, “Do you believe in the doctrines of Holy Scriptures as set forth in the Articles of Religion of the Methodist Episcopal Church?”

In 1935, E.B. Chappell, editor of church school materials in the M.E. Church South, asserted in the book Recent Developments of Religious Education in the Methodist Episcopal Church that earlier leaders “lacking in scholarly equipment” were well-intentioned but did not realize the “larger meanings” of theology and taught an “inherited Calvinism” leading to “erroneous opinions that became a serious hindrance to the development of effective religious education.” Chappell identified the erroneous opinions as total depravity, emphasis on blood atonement, and the necessity for radical conversion. Chappell admitted the task before the leaders with scholarly equipment was great, since almost all Methodists still clung to the old ways of thinking, but these Methodists would have to change.

Chappell was followed by Ethel L. Smither in a 1937 book entitled The Use of the Bible with Children, which stated clearly that what was being presented was not just one person’s idea, but was “official” and “approved” by the Board of Education of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Smither started with a discussion of “universal reconstruction” – old ways were not adequate; new ways must prevail. The new ways were that the learning of facts, doctrine, and Bible stories was no longer acceptable. What was acceptable was having “vital experiences.” The purpose of Christian education was not to impart knowledge about God or the Bible or salvation, but character growth and personality development. The end result was that most Bible material, including stories from Bible story books, and especially the Old Testament, was not suitable for children, since they would present a picture of God that was distorted by contact with pre-Christian ideas.

Harold Paul Sloan, representing a small and unsuccessful evangelical effort to counteract the modernist juggernaut, in the 1916 book The Child and the Church argued that the most important crisis in the Church was over what would be taught to children. To deny the doctrine of Original Sin was also to deny the cross, the Atonement, and the doctrine of Christ the redeemer.

In 1929, George Betts published a study The Beliefs of 700 Ministers. The affirmation: “Man was originally in a state of complete moral perfection which he lost by his disobedience and fall,” was affirmed by only 61 percent of the 700 ministers studied. While 71 percent of the Evangelical Association pastors affirmed the statement, only 40 percent of the Methodists could do so. Among seminary students, only 18 percent affirmed the statement. After Congregationalists, Methodists were the most liberal group of the denominations surveyed.

Modernism as an approach to theology and Christian education was discredited by the 1950s. It was a spiritually bankrupt theology. Many ideologies have been, however, advocated in its place: idealism, process theology, existentialism, feminism, womanist theology, liberation theology – all of which have failed to win the hearts and minds of ordinary people, who still read their Bibles, and in countless churches across the nation, still preach a Christ crucified.

Those who worry about United Methodism should know that, thanks in part to Good News and other evangelical renewal movements, United Methodists have greatly modified their views since Betts’ study in 1929. Except for American Baptists, United Methodists are now more conservative in their doctrinal and moral views than any of the other mainline denominations. Groups like the United Church of Christ, the Episcopalians, the Lutherans (once the most conservative theologically of all mainline groups), the Disciples, and the Presbyterians are imploding and in statistical free-fall. It can be argued there is a direct relationship between how theologically liberal a denomination is and how great is the disintegration.

Disintegrating relevance 

The disintegration is not just in statistical numbers, but in influence and relevance. Without a central core of essential truth, churches and denominations meander into meaninglessness. This is the major issue facing United Methodism today. It may be fine to present Plans of Action with important restructuring. It may be fine to talk about Vital Congregations which are welcoming and diverse and friendly. It may be fine to be involved in works or mercy in the community. It may be fine to seek social justice and to work for the end of poverty and racism. It may be fine to have highly educated ministers trained in philosophy and the social sciences. But without the preaching of the pure Word of God, the people perish. Would that we might hear that word from our bishops and our church leaders.

For many years, progressives ruled in the seminaries and the boards and agencies and even at the General Conferences in The United Methodist Church. Under their leadership, the church has suffered. At the moment there is no hint that these people have the slightest clue as to the connection between what they have been advocating and the destruction of the church.

But maybe, just maybe, the tide is beginning to turn. When Bishop Melvin Talbert went into a rant following the General Conference and called what is in the Discipline “immoral and unjust and no longer deserving of our loyalty and obedience,” he may have been doing the church a favor. Some other bishops stood with Talbert. He was supported by some jurisdictions and conferences and special interest groups. Let us understand this for what it is: an outburst of desperation because the church is no longer willing to march to the progressive drum beat.

Many of us wish still to uphold the doctrines and discipline of The United Methodist Church. We are not willing to jettison that which made us vital and strong. For this we pray and work.

Riley B. Case is a retired member of the North Indiana Conference, assistant executive director of the Confessing Movement, and a member of the Good News Board of Directors. He is also the author of Evangelical and Methodist: A Popular History (Abingdon) 

Good News responds to same-sex marriage statement

by Steve | Mar 5, 2013 | In the News

On June 1, 2011, a civil unions law went into effect in Illinois that provided same-sex couples the same type of legal protections utilized by married couples. According to The New York Times, these rights included “emergency medical decision-making powers, inheritance rights, pension benefits, adoption and parental rights, and the ability to share a room in a nursing home.”

“In Illinois, a civil union is a legal relationship between two people – either of the same or different sex,” reports the American Civil Liberties Union, “providing all of the legal obligations, responsibilities, protections, and benefits that the law of Illinois grants to married couples.”

More than 5,000 couples in Illinois are registered with the state for civil union benefits.

Although Illinois recognizes all the legal benefits of civil unions, Bishop Sally Dyck has issued a public statement of support for a same-sex marriage measure in Illinois. In a statement to members of the Northern Illinois Conference, she writes: “While the United Methodist Church holds that the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching, it also holds the teaching and a long tradition (albeit a struggle every inch of the way) of civil rights. Marriage equality is a civil rights issue; it provides for all what is afforded to some. … Because I believe in marriage, it’s my belief it will be a benefit for this law to pass.”

The Rev. Rob Renfroe, president and publisher of Good News, issued the following statement in response to Bishop Dyck’s public campaigning for same-sex marriage.

“Good News is disappointed that Bishop Sally Dyck has chosen to advocate for the legislative approval of same-sex marriage in the state of Illinois. Since 2004, our church has said that we ‘support laws in civil society that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.’ Indeed, our definition of marriage as a covenant ‘between a man and a woman’ dates back to 1972. This position received a 77 percent vote at General Conference in 2004 and still represents the one issue among all the sexuality-related issues that garners the broadest support across the church.

“We respect Bishop Dyck and have worked well with her in the past in relating to the Unity Task Force of the Council of Bishops which she led. However, we believe that for Bishop Dyck to advocate a minority position that is at odds with the stated position of the church fosters disunity and deepens the sense of disconnect felt by many United Methodist members. In 2011, more than 14,000 United Methodists signed a letter to the Council of Bishops asking them to support the denomination’s position on same sex marriage. The Council issued a statement of support. Bishop Dyck’s advocacy flies in the face of the Council’s statement.

“We share Bishop Dyck’s commitment to ensure the protection of the civil rights of all persons. However, there are other ways to ensure the civil rights of gay and lesbian persons without redefining the bedrock institution of marriage. We see no reason why the church should allow a secular, anthropocentric, hyper-sexualized Western culture to tell us what marriage is, rather than looking to the Scriptures and, with real concern for the rights of all, maintaining what God has revealed.”

Good News has been an independent, evangelical voice within The United Methodist Church since 1967. As a renewal and reform movement, Good News urges the church to be faithful to the biblically-based principles of its historic Wesleyan heritage. In our desire to see The United Methodist Church centered on Jesus Christ, we want to see our church engaged in vital ministry, growing disciples of Jesus Christ, and transforming the world.

Distorted United Methodist abortion statement

by Steve | Mar 5, 2013 | In the News

United Methodist representatives to the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC) are once again promoting a lopsided and jaundiced view of our denomination’s view of abortion. Staffers from the United Methodist Women (UMW) and the General Board of Church and Society recently marked the 40th anniversary of the controversial Roe v. Wade decision by bizarrely claiming “we seek to be a voice crying out to prepare the way for the Lord to bring about a new era of reproductive justice for our families and communities,” a warped apparent reference to John the Baptist. The Bible teaches that John the Baptist leaped in his mother’s womb when he was in the presence of Jesus Christ, who was still in the womb of Mary.

As United Methodists, we do not believe that Jesus Christ came to “bring about a new era of reproductive justice.” Instead, Jesus said that the “Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10).

Aside from making a mockery of biblical imagery regarding life and death, when will United Methodist personnel in Washington D.C. and New York stop acting like an abortion rights lobby group and begin to tell the whole truth about United Methodism’s position on abortion?

While United Methodism does recognize “tragic conflicts of life with life that may justify abortion, and in such cases we support the legal option of abortion” (Discipline, Para 161J, emphasis added), our nuanced stand does not end there.

An honest portrayal also reports that United Methodism “cannot affirm abortion as an acceptable means of birth control, and we unconditionally reject it as a means of gender selection or eugenics.” (Guttmacher Institute consistently reports that more than 90 percent of all abortions are for birth control reasons. Additionally, studies have shown that more than 90 percent of pregnancies with a diagnosis of Down Syndrome are aborted.)

Furthermore, United Methodism overwhelmingly opposes “late-term abortion known as dilation and extraction (partial-birth abortion)….”

The Church and Society/UMW statement fails to mention any of United Methodism’s opposition to abortion.

There is a great disconnect between the men and women in the pews and pulpits in local UM congregations and the abortion enthusiasts associated with the RCRC, Church and Society, and the UMW. Local congregations will continue to struggle to justify sending apportionments to agencies who fail to tell the whole truth about United Methodism’s stand on abortion.

Why have we never seen the Board of Church and Society address the crisis of utilizing abortion as a means of birth control? Why have we not seen the briefing paper from the UMW addressing the sickening use of abortion for gender selection in the United States and around the globe? Why is there a deafening silence regarding the practice of late-term abortions? Where is the outcry over the abortion of mentally or physically challenged infants?

Instead, United Methodist abortion advocates utilize the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade to repeat overused and vacuous slogans such as “keep abortion safe, legal, accessible, and rare.” (Their full statement is available on the General Board of Church and Society’s website.)

Nowhere in the Church and Society/UMW statement is there a hint of the modern-day tragedy of 1.2 million lives lost every year in the U.S. due to abortion or the widespread use of abortion for birth control, gender selection, or eugenics in the world. Where is the equal regard called for in our denominational position, where “we are equally bound to respect the sacredness of the life and well-being of the mother and the unborn child” (¶ 161J)? The narrow scope of the Church and Society/UMW statement is out of touch with the mainstream position of The UM Church.

Good News supports efforts to address maternal mortality by providing better “pre-natal services, birthing assistance, and post-natal follow-up.” We support access to contraception in keeping with the individual consciences of women and providers, as well as comprehensive sex education, to reduce unintended pregnancies. However, we firmly believe that the answer to unintended pregnancies and maternal mortality is not increased access to abortion.

Instead, the Church and the broader society need to provide emotional and material support to women with unintended pregnancies. That is why our denominational position says, “The Church shall offer ministries to reduce unintended pregnancies. We commit our Church to continue to provide nurturing ministries to those who terminate a pregnancy, to those in the midst of a crisis pregnancy, and to those who give birth. … The Church and its local congregations and campus ministries should be in the forefront of supporting existing ministries and developing new ministries that help [young adult] women in their communities. … We particularly encourage the Church, the government, and social service agencies to support and facilitate the option of adoption. (See ¶ 161L) We affirm and encourage the Church to assist the ministry of crisis pregnancy centers and pregnancy resource centers that compassionately help women find feasible alternatives to abortion” (¶ 161J).

It appears that RCRC and our United Methodist representatives are not interested in ministries that would reduce the number of abortions. That is why they also call for a “careful analysis of the church’s support for crisis pregnancy centers that may not offer all options of counseling.” From their pro-abortion perspective, such suspicion of crisis pregnancy centers that provide “feasible alternatives to abortion” undermines their call to keep abortion “rare.” Instead, the extremists at RCRC favor no restrictions on abortion, at any time in pregnancy or for any reason.

Good News wants to know when our United Methodist agencies will advocate for the full and balanced position of our church on abortion. It appears that our agency staff persons have greater allegiance to the external coalition of RCRC than they do to our own denomination’s Social Principles. Our church’s membership in RCRC is distorting our advocacy in the church and public arenas. It is past time for our denomination to withdraw its membership from RCRC.

– The Good News editorial team