by Steve | Jan 15, 2026 | Uncategorized
By James V. Heidinger II
In October of 2024, the Good News renewal movement celebrated 57 years of renewal efforts within the United Methodist Church, and marked the end of its ministry. With the Global Methodist Church having launched as a new, more orthodox denomination in the Wesleyan theological tradition, the Good News board and leadership believed its ministry of renewal within the United Methodist Church had come to an end.
Though I had retired from the ministry in 2009, my wife Joanie and I were extended a gracious invitation and made the trip to Houston for the final Good News board meeting at the beautiful Woodlands United Methodist Church followed by a celebratory dinner at a nearby restaurant. The dinner was a wonderful evening, sharing fellowship with Good News leaders Rob Renfroe, Tom Lambrecht, Steve Beard, other staff, board members and a few major donors to the ministry. A number of us spoke briefly about Good News’ 57 years of prayerful efforts for renewal and reform within the United Methodist Church.
Though Good News’ ministry was coming to an end in December of 2024, the ministry’s board took action to continue one more year of Good News magazine, providing the funds for its publication and Steve Beard’s editorship. This last year it has been under the auspices of the Institute on Religion and Democracy and its long-time President Mark Tooley, and the John Wesley Institute, headed by its President, Ryan Danker. The magazine’s focus during 2025 has been on impressive, enriching articles in the Wesleyan theological tradition, but aimed at the larger, world-wide Wesleyan community.
While I was pleased with the extension of the magazine for another year, I have felt something more needed to be said about the ministry of Steve Beard. He has served as editor of Good News magazine for some 34 years, a lengthy tenure of excellent, faithful service that is now finally coming to an end. Wow! We all should pause a moment and reflect on whether we know of anyone who has continued faithfully in a single ministry assignment for 34 years! By any measure, this is a remarkable feat of faithful and fruitful service. Thinking about it makes me think of Eugene Peterson’s great Christian classic, A Long Obedience in the Same Direction.
I remember when Steve came to Kentucky to join our staff in 1991, having served previously at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and the Institute on Religion and Democracy, both located in Washington, D.C. One of my favorite photos of Steve’s was taken from a conversation he was having back then with no less than the famed William F. Buckley, founder of National Review magazine, and his wife Pat at a dinner. Both Buckley and his wife were leaning forward listening carefully to what the young staffer at EPPC, Steve Beard, was saying. Usually, people were leaning forward listening carefully to what the brilliant Bill Buckley was saying. I grew to understand how bright and engaging this young man was when he became a part of our Good News staff, editing our ministry’s magazine.
There are so many things I have appreciated about Steve’s work with Good News magazine. He was committed to producing a magazine that had balance, making sure there was something for our entire United Methodist readership, both clergy and laity. After a number of years, I realized how easy it would have been for me to lean toward a publication geared mainly for just clergy. Steve made sure that didn’t happen. There were articles for persons of all ages, for clergy and laity, men and women, urban and rural, and with racial sensitivity. He was careful that we not be consumed by the negatives, which of course, there were many. In a time when general readership magazines were languishing, Steve continued to make Good News a quality, well-informed, inspirational, edifying, and always challenging publication—just a great read! He had keen insight and concern about how the Good News movement would be perceived across the denomination, and he was always careful to avoid things that would invite unnecessary criticisms of Good News’ larger renewal efforts.
Steve also maintained cordial and positive professional relationships with those involved at United Methodist Communications in Nashville. He respected them, treated them cordially, and I sensed that they responded positively to Steve in return, even while understanding that he represented a renewal ministry with which they often disagreed.
I would add that Steve is an excellent journalist, that is, a very gifted writer, in church matters and beyond. Many of us were impressed at his articles reviewing movies and critiquing pop culture. He was a contributor to National Review Online and BreakPoint.com. He was a contributing author to Spiritual Journeys: How Faith Has Influenced Twelve Music Icons (Relevant, 2003) in which he wrote chapters on Bono, Johnny Cash, and Al Green. He was also asked to contribute the forward to Steve Stockman’s book, Walk On: The Spiritual Journey of U2 (Relevant Books, 2001). Steve’s articles have appeared in Charisma, Discipleship Journal, The Washington Times, and World magazine. Yes, Steve was and is a profoundly gifted writer.
Steve also has great instincts to see the larger picture of things. He regularly helped me with articles, editorials, as well as the monthly letters to our constituents. He made me a better writer. I am thankful for his patience and gentle critiques during those many years we worked together.
So, it has been hard to see this major investment of Steve’s life and energy come to an end without some acknowledgement or recognition for all he’s done. Thanks to you, Steve Beard, for serving faithfully for 34 years as an editor who consistently gave us a first-class magazine of which we could all be proud (about 200 issues in all)! I wish there could have been one final magazine to give many of us a chance to say a much-deserved thank-you, well-done, and “Farewell.”
Do know, Steve, that for many of us who have been your colleagues and co-laborers, we know well the significance of your ministry—for a full third of a century—to the vital renewal venture in which we have all shared. You have made an enormous contribution to this endeavor.
Then, as your friend and brother in Christ, I want to express personally my heart-felt gratitude and appreciation for you, your friendship, and what your ministry has meant to me. You, dear friend, have my deep and enduring admiration. For all you have done, I give thanks to our Heavenly Father. You are an example, indeed, of “a long obedience in the same direction.” Do keep writing!
James V. Heidinger II is President Emeritus of Good News. This article first appeared on the Institute on Religion and Democracy’s website Juicy Ecumenism.
by Steve | Jan 7, 2026 | Uncategorized
Dr. Thomas C. Oden (1931-2016)
By James V. Heidinger II-
We can learn much from the remarkable theological journey of the late Professor Thomas C. Oden, who taught for more than 30 years as a professor of theology and ethics at the theology school at Drew University. Dr. Oden, a longtime colleague in denominational renewal, was a courageous, loyal United Methodist who loved the church. He was a theologian without peer within United Methodism. He was also highly respected in Protestant, Catholic, and orthodox communions as well as numerous evangelical denominations. He authored more than 20 books, including a three-volume Systematic Theology. He was also the general editor of the acclaimed Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture series, a 27-volume work published by lnterVarsity Press. The importance of his contribution cannot be overstated.
“I left seminary having learned to treat scripture selectively, according to how well it might serve my political idealism,” he wrote in The Rebirth of Orthodoxy. “I adapted the Bible to my ideology – an ideology of social and political change largely shaped by soft Marxist premises about history and a romanticized vision of the emerging power and virtue of the underclass.” This ideology led him to involvement in numerous trendy movements, such as the United World Federalists promoting world government, liberalized abortion, the demythologizing movement (about which he did his PhD dissertation), transactional analysis, parapsychology, biorhythm charts, tarot cards, and the list goes on. Oden looked back on those years with some amusement at his obsession with such trends, and admitted that he felt he was doing Christian teaching a marvelous favor by it and even considered this accommodation the very substance of the Christian teaching office.
He wrote, “For years I tried to read the New Testament entirely without the premises of incarnation and resurrection – something that is very hard to do.” He assumed that truth in religion “would be finally reducible to economics (with Marx), or psychosexual factors (with Freud), or power dynamics (with Nietzsche).” He confessed “I was uncritically accommodating to the very modernity that pretended to be prophetic, yet I did not recognize modernity’s captivity to secular humanistic assumptions.” During those years, Oden acknowledged, “I never dreamed that I would someday grant to scripture its own distinctive premises: divine sovereignty, revelation, incarnation, resurrection, and final judgment.” Reading those words, one is struck that they described, as we have seen earlier, the very premises that were essentially put aside during the heyday of theological liberalism. They were rejected because they assume the reality of the supernatural and the miraculous.
Oden went on to say, “I had been taught that these premises were precisely what had to be transcended, reworded, circumvented, and danced around in order to communicate with the modern mind.” Frankly, this is the kind of theological ballet many evangelicals have watched for decades as liberal pastors and theologians have often “wrongly handled the word of truth” (to paraphrase Saint Paul), dancing and circumventing and rewording the plain meaning of the biblical text. The phrase Oden used is haunting as one reflects upon it. He wrote, “I had been taught.” But taught what, exactly? Well, in his words, taught that the premises of divine sovereignty, revelation, incarnation, resurrection, and final judgment had to be “transcended, reworded, circumvented, and danced around.” He was taught that these premises or theological convictions could no longer be valid in a new era of enlightenment. These were premises we must somehow improve upon. Yes, Oden had been taught, by sincere and no doubt well-meaning professors. One wonders how many seminarians have had such theological instruction in their preparation for ministry but never came back home to reaffirm the integrity and intellectual credibility of apostolic Christianity.
Thankfully, Thomas Oden came back home. He had a major theological reversal, as he described it. He celebrated the grace of God at work in his bizarre journey. He wrote, “Now I revel in the very premises I once carefully learned to set aside: the triune mystery, the preexistent Logos, the radical depth of sin passing through the generations, the risen Lord, the grace of baptism.” Let’s admit the obvious here: when you set aside these major themes of Christian doctrine, what remains of the historic Christian faith? There was a commendable honesty in Oden’s admission. He didn’t claim that he was simply reinterpreting those themes. He admitted these were themes he had learned “to set aside.”
What was it, then, that brought about this remarkable reversal in Oden’s life and theology? Hear this brief portion in his own words: “What changed the course of my life? A simple reversal that hung on a single pivot: attentiveness to the text of scripture, especially as viewed by its early consensual interpreters.” Most laity would be perplexed that a theologian might not give great attentiveness to the text of Scripture. That seems so basic to the ministerial vocation. But again, it “reflects how Scripture was, and is, perceived in the liberal/modern perspective. Oden wrote, “Before my reversal, all of my questions about theology and the modern world had been premised on key value assumptions of modern [liberal] consciousness – assumptions such as absolute moral relativism. After meeting new friends in the writings of antiquity, I had a new grounding for those questions.”
Before his reversal, Oden “distrusted even the faint smell of Orthodoxy. I was in love with heresy – the wilder, the more seductive,” he wrote. “Now I have come to trust the very consensus I once dismissed and distrusted. Generations of double-checking confirm it as a reliable body of scriptural interpretation. I now relish studying the diverse rainbow of orthodox voices from varied cultures spanning all continents over two thousand years.”
Professor Thomas C. Oden
One smiles, but with thanksgiving, at this former movement theologian writing of his newly found commitment to “unoriginality.” He insisted, “That is not a joke but a solemn pledge. I am trying to curb any pretense at ‘improving’ upon the apostles and fathers.” Acknowledging the “deceptiveness of originality,” he went on to write, “I can now listen intently to those who attest a well-grounded tradition of general consent rather than a narrow contemporary bias. I listen to voices that echo what has been affirmed by the community of saints of all times and places.”
In his autobiography, A Change of Heart, he described it as a “cycle of learning, unlearning and relearning.” This was reflected in “my joyful reception, then in my sophisticated rejection, then later in my embracing the hymns of my childhood.” At first he believed naively that God had come in the flesh. Then he learned that God had not really come in the flesh “but rather in some symbolic sense acceptable to modern assumptions.” Then, “At last I learned to recover the uncomplicated truth that God precisely becomes human in the flesh, dies for me, rises again and saves me from my sins. All these are viewed by consensual Christianity as historical events.”
It should come as no surprise that a theologian who spent his professional life in the world of theological education would write a book that addressed the problems of modern-day seminary education. Oden did so, though regretfully he admitted, as he loves the United Methodist Church and he loved the school of theology at Drew, where he spent so much of his professional teaching career.
In Requiem, he critiqued the failure of contemporary theological education and called for a return to classical Christian theology. He could have chosen to just gloss over the current ailment in the seminary world, he admitted, but “not with a healthy conscience.” While confessing that he is a “conflict-avoiding peace lover,” he wrote these sober and troubling words: “So after a lifetime of teaching … I am very nearly convinced that the present system is practically irreformable. This I say sadly, not irately.” He lamented the seminaries being “tradition-deprived,” and wrote about an academic tenure system that is “fixed in stone.” He also noted the academic distrust of the parish. In fact, “brilliant academics with no experience whatever in the actual practice of the ministry of Word, Sacrament, and pastoral care are often those who compete best in the race to become teachers of ministers in the trendy, fad-impaired seminary.” He noted sadly that having parish experience is more likely to be a negative factor than a positive one when seeking a teaching position in the seminary today.
Oden also cited the triumph of latitudinarianism, that is, a complete tolerance of all doctrinal views. The result is the complete absence of heresy. He wrote frankly that “heresy simply does not exist.” This is something never before achieved in Christian history, he observed. But the “liberated seminary” has finally “found a way of overcoming heterodoxy [departure from traditional doctrine] altogether, by banishing it as a concept legitimately teachable within the hallowed walls of the inclusive multicultural, doctrinally experimental institution.” The only heresy one might possibly encounter, said Oden, is an offense against inclusivism. One might add another – the failure to use politically correct language for God. (This, perhaps, would be considered a part of inclusivism.)
In the late 1970s, studies reported the sobering news that United Methodism’s seminaries were failing. There was a high dropout rate among young clergy, both male and female. In addition, there was an increasing struggle for student registration and tuition. Oden suggested at the time that if his seminary would only appoint a few new faculty who could connect with evangelical students, it would help solve that problem. Unfortunately, the new faculty appointments were “all in the opposite direction,” Oden wrote in A Change of Heart. “Most new appointments were made to left-leaning scholars who were dedicated to their ideologies and who either ignored, loathed or demeaned evangelicals.”
The day of ignoring what is happening in our denominational seminaries is over, according to Professor Oden. In a word of warning in Requiem, he wrote, “Christian worshipers can no longer afford to neglect what is happening to the young people they guilelessly send off to seminary, entrusting that they will be taught all that is requisite for Christian ministry.” He concluded with a sober but very timely warning to the church about seminaries that have clearly lost their way theologically: “When the liberated have virtually no immune system against heresy, no defense whatever against perfidious [treacherous, breaking of trust] teaching, no criteria for testing the legitimacy of counterfeit theological currency, it is time for laity to learn about theological education.”
Professors often justify teaching anything they want to teach by appealing to academic freedom, but Oden was not so ready to let them off the hook on that. He wrote, “If the liberated have the freedom to teach apostasy, the believing church has the freedom to withhold its consent.” He made the case even stronger: “If they reach counter-canonical doctrines and conjectures inimical to the health of the church, the church has no indelible moral obligation to give them support or to bless their follies.”
Oden affirmed that as a former sixties radical and now an out-of-the-closet orthodox evangelical, he shared concerns with a new generation of young classic Christian men and women who affirmed the faith of the apostles and martyrs. He found himself “ironically entering into a kind of resistance movement in relation to my own generation of relativists, who have botched things up pretty absolutely.” We must not miss the sobering implications of what he said – that he as an “orthodox evangelical” saw himself as being part of “a kind of resistance movement” in today’s church. He would assure us that this was not fantasy or hyperbole or some messianic obsession. He engaged the church theologically for more than four decades and his words are a sobering critique, perhaps an indictment, of the theological setting in contemporary United Methodism: to be an “orthodox evangelical” is to be part of a “resistance movement.” Many evangelical seminarians would understand that sentiment from their own personal seminary experience.
James V. Heidinger II was the publisher and president emeritus of Good News. A clergy member of the East Ohio Annual Conference, he led Good News for 28 years until his retirement in 2009. Dr. Heidinger is the author of several books, including the recently published The Rise of Theological Liberalism and the Decline of American Methodism (Seedbed). This essay is excerpted from that volume with permission. This article first appeared in Good News in 2017.
by Steve | May 2, 2025 | Home Page Hero Slider, In the News, March/April 2025, Uncategorized
Recurring Patterns & Unheeded Warnings —
By James R. Thobaben (March/April 2025) —
Humans see patterns. It is not enough to see facts, that is, bits of information that correspond to the world around us. It is also necessary to have knowledge, that is an understanding of how those facts fit together. Indeed, to live and thrive, we must also see patterns.
Still, sometimes, we perceive and/or describe patterns incorrectly. This is especially true of historical patterns. There really are patterns that exist and repeat. This is even true about the little corner of humanity describable as Wesleyan-Methodism. Patterns exist. Tendencies are discernable. Probabilities are evident.
One of the most helpful schemas for understanding the history of Methodism is that of Ernst Troeltsch (1865-1923) as modified by H.R. Niebuhr (1894-1962). Troeltsch’s theology is not of very much value to orthodox/orthopraxic believers, but his sociology is. Troeltsch developed the ‘church-sect’ model which was later supplemented by H. Richard Niebuhr, another excellent sociologist who also made dubious theological assertions.
Unfortunately, their sociological arguments are more than a bit “academic-y.” And, these are made even more confusing by Troetsch’s and Niebuhr’s propensity to use very common words like “church,” “sect,” “mystic,” and “denomination” in very narrow and often counter-intuitive senses. For instance, for them “sect” does not mean a closed group of crazed religious extremists, “mystic” does not refer to one who is lost in the adoration of God, nor does “denomination” mean an organized autonomous branch of Protestantism. Even so, their general description of the patterns of church history are very helpful in understanding Methodism.
So, modifying the terms and definitions of the church-sect model just a bit to fit more contemporary language and circumstances, one can divide up Christian Protestant ecclesial organizations using four patterns:
• A state-approved church: An organization that directly cooperates with those holding political and economic power; often the “state-approved church” (in the most extreme form, this is a “theocracy”).
• A sect: An organization in tension with the surrounding society’s power-holders due to the high membership standards that are contrary to the values of the popular culture or, at least, those holding political authority.
• A routinized denomination: An organization with primary focus on maintaining institutional structures and only loose concern with the original mission for which they were created; often there is little expectation of, nor concern for, the local congregation’s membership beyond their financial support ( the word “routinized” means “routine-ized” and often implies an unaccountable bureaucracy).
• An association of syncretistic individuals: A loosely-affiliated group in which members do not necessarily have common beliefs and behaviors; but tensions are minimized by high individualism and low shared expectations.
Although these are ‘ideal types’ or generalized patterns, they are helpful for describing the reoccurring organizational patterns in Methodist history and likely where it will go in the future. Knowing this can help the new expressions of Methodism (perhaps) resist such tendencies and maintain fidelity to the God they claim to serve and the mission for which they first came into existence.
Seeing Historical Patterns in Methodism
At first, Methodist was a “sect” but within a state-sanctioned church. In a sense, it was a Protestant version of a monastic community within Catholicism. The Oxford Methodists (Charles Wesley, William Morgan, and Bob Kirkham, to be joined by John Clayton and George Whitfield, and soon led by Charles’ older brother John) were very strict, holding high membership expectations. They freely chose to be accountable to one another in order to spur one another into living out Christian holiness even while serving as clergy in a broader national church with only nominal membership standards.
Soon enough, these early Methodists — all affiliated with the most elite educational institution in the English-speaking world — began to insist that religious excellence was possible for and expected of all. This claim, and some of their methods (field preaching, visiting the imprisoned, etc.), resulted in significant tension between themselves and ecclesial authorities.
Rejection by their social peers did not impede the early Methodists’ efforts to follow their shared mission of spreading scriptural holiness in “reforming” the nation and the Church (Large Minutes). To the first Methodists this meant offering Christ to any with “a desire to flee the wrath to come” and assisting those born-again to mature in faithfulness. The movement was open to men and women, the rich and the poor, the educated scholar and the day laborer. Methodism grew beyond the founders’ expectations, and it did so quite rapidly. It maintained its sectarian strictness (evidenced by the expulsions noted in the early editions of the “Minutes’’), even while remaining within the state church (the Wesleys and several others remained priests).
The development of formal structures was necessary to maintain both the extremely high membership expectations and significant outreach. In this necessary development of structure — this “routinizing” — lay the insidious kernels of the organization’s spiritual decay. The pattern was set.
Methodism and its revivalism first made its way to the colonies of North America through the ministry of Calvinist Methodist George Whitfield (1740), who allied himself with Jonathan Edwards. The former was the key preacher of the Great Awakening, the North American side of the British Evangelical Awakening that in England and Ireland was being led by the Wesleys. Revivalism in the American colonies lost momentum, in part due to limited organizational follow-up, but Methodism itself picked up again in 1760s under the leadership of committed laypersons. Methodism was still a “sect in a state-sanctioned church” with strict small groups maintaining moral and doctrinal standards.
The American Revolution, though, compelled an organizational change. Some Methodists, and a great number of Anglican priests left for Canada or Great Britian. Those remaining concluded they did not need a state church. Still, the sacraments were a means of grace, Methodists believed an ordained ministry was necessary for consecration. American-based ordination would have to be. The circuit preachers could be ordained, and the strict class and band system would then be maintained by North American lay leadership. Francis Asbury, along with Thomas Coke, (recently sent by Wesley) initiated a new organization, the Methodist Episcopal Church, for this purpose. The “sect-in-state-sanctioned-church” had become a “sect.”
High expectations of members (e.g., regular prayer, mutual accountability, attendance upon the sacraments, regular financial support, and active service to the marginal, including explicit opposition to slavery) once again put the group at odds with some of the newly established political, social, and economic authorities. The sect’s leadership accepted such as inevitable. As Wesley had several decades earlier noted: “Nor do the customs of the world at all hinder [the Methodist from] ‘running the race that is set before him.’ He knows that vice does not lose its nature, though it becomes ever so fashionable…He cannot, therefore, ‘follow’ even ‘a multitude to do evil’” (Character of a Methodist, 1741).
The now unattached sect remained strict for two to three generations. During this time it grew, and grew rapidly (it turns out that people who take Christianity seriously often want to be serious Christians). A huge upswing occurred with the Wilderness Revivals of the first decade of the 19th century (often called the Second Great Awakening, centered at Cane Ridge Meetinghouse in Kentucky). While other congregations were established, it was the strict, revivalist Baptists and even more so Methodists that exploded west of the Appalachians.
Wesley instructed the early Methodists to “[g]ain all you can by honest industry. Use all possible diligence in your calling” (Use of Money). He also realized, long before those sociological thinkers, that this would lead to increased wealth and status and, perhaps, spiritual problems associated not only with materialism but with social “acceptability.”
“I am not afraid that the people called Methodists should ever cease to exist either in Europe or America. But I am afraid lest they should only exist as a dead sect, having the form of religion without the power. And this undoubtedly will be the case unless they hold fast both the doctrine, spirit, and discipline with which they first set out” (“Thoughts on Methodism,” 1787).
By the third and fourth generation Methodists had begun their rise into the new middle class and started to lose their sectarian mutual accountability. This was evidenced in increasing cultural accommodation. For instance, as Asbury bemoaned:
“My spirit was grieved at the conduct of some Methodists, that hire out slaves at public places to the highest bidder, to cut, skin, and starve them; I think such members ought to be dealt with: on the side of oppressors there is law and power, but where is justice and mercy to the poor slaves? what eye will pity, what hand will help, or ear listen to their distresses? I will try if words can be like drawn swords, to pierce the hearts of the owners.” (The Journal of the Rev. Francis Asbury: Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church, from August 7, 1771, to December 7, 1815 (New York: N. Bangs and T. Mason, 1821), 2:273)
Along with their economic success and a desire for social acceptance came what could only be called an abomination: the toleration of chattel slavery amongst a wide swath of the membership. The first Book of Discipline (1785) of the Methodist Episcopal Church had required that, “unless they buy them on purpose to free them,” anyone dealing in the trafficking of slaves was, “immediately to be expelled.” Sadly, by the third decade of the 19th century, a bishop owning slaves was tolerated by far too many. Perhaps this was inevitable due to the disregard some fifty years earlier of Richard Allen and Absalom Jones and perhaps 40 laypersons.
The 1830’s toleration of slavery was not the cause, but the proof that Methodism had moved from being a “sect-within-a-state-sanctioned church” through being an independent “sect” to become a “routinized denomination.” Though a debate raged, some denominational elites made excuses for the tacit (or sometimes explicit) approval of the societal convention. Schisms over the moral and doctrinal compromise had already occurred and schism after schism would follow.
Methodism’s willing compromise with the culture seemed to be the inevitable, a sociological pattern. Methodists had become economically successful, the mutual accountability of the band system had gone into decline, and bishops had found pleasure hobnobbing with cultural elites. Methodism did continue to grow in numbers, but also in the social acceptability that coincided with cultural accommodation, in that case over the toleration of slavery.
Schisms over the perceived abandonment of early Methodism’s sectarian fervor occurred. Sometimes this led to a belligerent legalism with the split-off organizations maintaining a small, highly sectarian membership.
There is no reason to rehearse all of Methodist history. The pattern is one that has obviously recurred. Sectarian purity with high membership expectations is modified, rightly or wrongly, for more effective outreach. The organizational structures develop with leadership seeking social approval, and then routinize into unaccountable bureaucracies. Schism after schism occurs in the hope of a “primitive,” Scriptural purity, but then the pattern is reiterated by the third or fourth generation.
Finally, the Methodist movement made it to the late 20th century. In Britain, the pattern of this stage was marked by innumerable abandoned Methodist buildings. In Canada and Australia, Methodism was absorbed into “united” churches, seemingly gaining nothing but more managerial positions. In the U.S. the “mainline” churches — including the United Methodist — were no longer “main.” The oldline denominations, as well as many evangelical ones as well, were deemed mediocre in fulfilling their missions, at best.
Completing the sociological pattern, many of those oldline congregations had become nothing but “associations of syncretistic individuals.” The oldline churches were often made up of people with a shared appreciation for potlucks but having little else in common. Certainly, the “average Methodist congregation” was not theologically or morally consistent. Accountability on personal purity and doctrine for the laity (and, arguably for the clergy and bureaucrats) was gone. “Social holiness,” a term referring to mutual accountability on core doctrine and morality, had come to mean agreement with the bureaucracy’s social agenda.
The historical pattern has been reiterated time after time. Dynamic reformers coalesce in effort to reinvigorate their community. Keeping their original fervor and strictness, they start to grow. They are respected by some for their integrity and rejected by others for their legalism. Small reform groups form internally and a few split off. Paradoxically, the new main body’s social acceptance so compromises its character that it becomes unappealing, and it starts a slow decline. The dissipation is slow at first, because the group has significant social and economic capital which continue to fund the managerial level of the organization.
Can Patterns of Decay Be Resisted?
Does this repeated pattern indicate a sort of sociological predestination? No, but, so what?
• What will happen to the UM Church? In all likelihood, decline continues, especially overseas. Eventually, that will stabilize, perhaps with the societal presence of the UMC being similar to that of the UCC or the PCUSA. A few congregations may remain strong or even grow in small towns or in urban enclaves. Denominational resources that remain will be devoted to organizational maintenance.
Internationally, the UMC brand has not been as damaged as in the US, but it is becoming so. These churches will either decline or split off (the trust clause will be less effectual, though the US funding will remain enticing to bishops and bureaucrats). Lost members will go to growing neo-Pentecostal denominations or become postmodernist non-participants. Some congregations and conferences may become GMC or go autonomous.
There is some hope for those individual UMC congregations that want to remain true to that original mission of the Oxford Methodists. They can survive and thrive, but only to the extent that they operate distinctly from the central administration. Unfortunately, toleration of such by those with organizational authority is unlikely.
• What happens to the GMC? It may become a slightly more conservative version of the UMC. It is likely that rules will quickly arise that limit significant experimentation in order to promote the maintenance of the organization.
Fortunately, this process of routinization is currently being delayed by the stripping down to basics in the new Discipline. Still, it important that the GMC not confuse sectarian theological and moral conservatism with political and cultural conservatism. The goal cannot be to replicate ideals of post-WWII suburban Methodism. If the GMC establishes mechanisms and requirements for mutual accountability for both personal purity and social service, and if it allows experimentations in ministry forms, then it may actually flourish, at least for three or even four generations.
• What happens with the small congregations that have gone independent? They likely become something akin to independent Baptist churches that happen to allow infant baptism. Though there will be exceptions, most will likely function as “family chapels” with strong pastoral care but little concern beyond the walls, so to speak.
• And, what happens with the Foundry Network, the “Collegiate” body, and other very large churches that are not formally affiliating with others? Ironically, as with the very small independents, the lack of accountability beyond the organization may lead to institutional inbreeding. Though their being better at adopting techniques from the popular culture will keep their numbers up at first, they will grow increasingly dependent on the personal charisma of their leadership and an erroneous belief in their own irreplaceability or the spiritual exceptionalism.
The hope for such is that those individual leaders will recognize their need to be accountable, for as Wesley put it “there is no holiness but social holiness.” This includes for those in authority. These churches must demonstrate a genuine willingness to cooperate in ministries, a willingness to participate in outside educational endeavors, and — most importantly — a willingness to be answerable to someone outside the formal congregational structures. Still, if those leaders can direct the church toward expectations of purity (not just numerical growth) and service outreach (not just seeking popularity), then much good ministry can occur (at least until a problematic leader arises).
It is hard to believe any of these groups remaining in or coming out of the UMC will continue to spiritually thrive in their current forms for more than three generations. This is not cynicism, but an acknowledgement that patterns are called patterns because they recur, over and over.
So, in the future, will any offer good ministry, meaning serving the marginal in the Name of our Lord and preaching the Good News to those needing salvation, be offered? Yes, of course, for the glory of God cannot be stopped by human failure. And, there have recently been small expressions of renewal. Perhaps more are coming.
For Methodists to be part, though, they will have to figure out new ways to reiterate the original mission of Methodism and the original mission of the Church. Breaking patterns is hard. And, my suspicion is that these patterns will be sadly replicated.
So, are these “new expressions” following the UMC schism all doomed by a sort of sociological predestination? No. This pattern of rise and decline can be resisted, but I do not see it happening. Then again, I could be wrong.
James Thobaben is Dean of the School of Theology and professor of Bioethics and Social Ethics at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky. He is the author of Healthcare Ethics: A Comprehensive Christian Resource. This article appeared in the March/April 2025 issue of Good News.
by Steve | Nov 20, 2024 | Front Page News, Home Page Hero Slider, Nov-Dec 2024, Uncategorized
New Day in San Jose –
By David F. Watson –
November/December 2024 –
The convening General Conference of the Global Methodist Church opened with the recitation of the Apostles’ Creed by a ten-year-old girl. It was a fitting beginning to our gathering in Costa Rica. We were there to plant seeds that will grow well beyond our lifetimes.
As we began to sing I felt myself overcome with emotion. So much work and sacrifice had led up to that very moment. At times I’d wondered whether we’d really get there. I looked around and wanted to remember everything. I thought of my friend Billy Abraham and how much of the groundwork he had laid for that moment he did not live to see. He was watching, however, from among the great cloud of witnesses, and I believe he was overjoyed.
We accomplished a great deal during the week-long event in September. We established the frame of a house that future generations will continue to build. We did have our challenges. Electronic voting was at times an exercise in frustration, but when has it been otherwise? (The grass withers and the flower fades, but online-voting malfunctions endure forever.) Despite the valiant efforts of the conference planning team, some of our international delegates couldn’t attend in person due to visa issues, so we made accommodations for them to participate via Zoom. It wasn’t ideal, but it allowed contributions and votes we would have missed otherwise. All in all, however, our time together was productive and uplifting. In what follows I’ll discuss a few of the more significant moments of our time together.
Some Key Legislative Decisions
The Constitution. One of our main accomplishments was the establishment of a constitution for the church. The Constitution Legislative Committee, chaired by the Rev. Ryan Barnett, had its hands full but completed its work in good order. When the body adopted the constitution in the plenary session, Bishop Mark J. Webb asked us to consider the gravity of that moment. Indeed, it was significant. We had established those standards, principles, and rules most central to the ordering of our ecclesiastical life.
Our doctrinal standards include our Wesleyan/Pietist standards of the Articles of Religion, Confession of Faith, Wesley’s Standard Sermons, and his Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament. We also added the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Definition of Chalcedon as doctrinal standards. In so doing, we anchored our church in the Great Tradition of Christian faith, the faith that has been confessed “everywhere, always, and by all,” in the words of Vincent of Lerins.
We are catholic Christians of a Methodist extraction. This may be Abraham’s most significant contribution to the denomination he did not live to see birthed.
Under normal circumstances, changes to the constitution would require a two-thirds majority vote, except for those parts protected by restrictive rules, which would require a three-fourths majority. The wisdom of the group, however, was not to lock down the constitution with these protections until we have the opportunity to refine it during the 2026 General Conference. Through that conference, changes will require a simple majority. We authorized a commission to combine the Articles of Religion and Confession of Faith and propose a new doctrinal standard in 2026. We also authorized a commission to bring back a revised version of the General Rules. The work of both committees must be adopted by the General Conference before going into effect.
Theological Education. The Committee on Ministry and the Local Church, chaired by the Rev. Leslie Tomlinson, established educational requirements for clergy. We affirmed that “those wishing to serve God’s people through ordination within the Global Methodist Church should pursue the highest level of learning and preparation possible.” For elders in the U.S., that is the Master of Divinity degree, though other master’s degrees may also suffice. Elsewhere in the world the expectation may be either a master’s degree or bachelor’s degree. We also added this qualification: “In addition, individuals whose setting, age, or life circumstances make such formal academic degree programs difficult or impractical may, with a secondary diploma, complete a non-degree certificate of pastoral studies from an educational program or programs approved by the Commission on Ministry, requiring the completion of at least the core classes outlined below.” The GMC is not currently using the standard Methodist language of “Course of Study” for non-degree education for ministry, though the reason escapes me. Rather, we refer to these as “alternative educational pathways.”
We also established a Commission on Approval responsible for assembling a list of approved educational institutions for ministerial theological education. Because there was some concern about this motion, it came off the consent calendar. I spoke in favor of it because I am concerned that we avoid outsourcing our education to non-Methodist programs. Many institutions approved in my former denomination had only a nominally Methodist presence. If our clergy are not educated in contexts where they can be formed deeply in the Methodist tradition, we can’t expect them to be Methodist in belief or practice when they come out. Seminaries in the Wesleyan-Methodist tradition like United, Asbury, and Wesley Biblical are examples of specifically Methodist institutions. Truett’s Wesley House, where they have invested significantly to develop the resources for formative training in the Wesleyan tradition, provides another model that educational institutions may wish to adopt.
Bishops. I served on the legislative committee in which there was probably the most disagreement going into the conference: the Episcopacy and Superintendency Legislative Committee, chaired by the Rev. Jordan McFall. Many Global Methodists are understandably skittish about bishops. The committee work was intense. We sliced, diced, and smithed words. Though we had two well-developed plans in hand, we began work at 8:30 a.m. and did not adjourn until almost 9:30 p.m. What follows might be a bit “insider baseball,” but I want to describe the care with which we went about this work.
The committee considered two models: the General Episcopacy Plan, developed by the Transitional Leadership Council, and the Hybrid Plan, developed by members of the Florida Conference delegation. We met in two subcommittees, each charged with refining one of the plans. Then we came back together as a whole. After lengthy discussion and debate, the committee chose by a large majority to move forward with the General Episcopacy plan. The Rev. Jay Therrell, who had been the primary spokesperson for the Hybrid Plan, stated graciously that, in the interest of unity, the drafters of that plan would not bring it forward as a minority report.
The General Episcopacy plan then went through a rigorous process of further refinement. One element of this proposal was the selection of two-year bishops to guide us until we could elect bishops to six-year terms in 2026. The Transitional Leadership Council had put forward a slate of candidates, which the committee voted to eliminate in favor of taking one nominee from each delegation. This created problems, however, because we have Global Methodists in Nigeria who came on board too late to send a delegation. They would therefore be unrepresented. It also meant that the process under which annual conferences had operated in good faith to nominate candidates was no longer valid. A motion came forward in the plenary, then, to restore the slate put forward by the Transitional Leadership Council with the possibility of further nominations from the floor. We limited the number of two-year bishops who could be re-elected in 2026 to 50 percent, and we established a 75 percent threshold for their re-election. The reason is that we did not want the two-year episcopacy to be an inside track to a six-year term. This motion passed after some debate.
The Mission Statement. The final legislative item of conference business was a proposal to adopt a new mission statement. Up to this point, our mission had been, “to make disciples of Jesus Christ who worship passionately, love extravagantly, and witness boldly.” Earlier in the year I wrote a piece expressing my desire that we change the mission statement. My primary reason was to link the mission of the Global Methodist Church to historic Methodism. I later submitted legislation to this effect, incorporating suggestions from the Rev. Paul Lawler and Dr. Jason Vickers. The proposed language read, “Led by the Holy Spirit, the Global Methodist Church exists to make disciples of Jesus Christ and spread scriptural holiness across the globe.”
Earlier in the week I was deflated after learning that the proposal had failed by one vote in its legislative committee after considerable debate. Later, however, that committee reconsidered the motion and it passed in an amended form. This amended version included the language of the old mission statement of worshiping passionately, loving extravagantly, and witnessing boldly. Many felt this version was too wordy but didn’t want to let go of the old mission statement entirely. It was unclear how we would move forward. As we worked our way through various business items on the last day of the conference, I became a bit nervous. We were running out of time. As the clock ticked down, I began to sweat bullets. Our mission is a crucial matter. I believed that without a mission linking the church to Wesley’s Methodism, within a generation we would be no more Methodist than the average Bible church (that is, not Methodist at all). The way forward was unclear. It could require considerable debate. Would we be able to reach agreement on the mission statement before our time expired?
It was the Rev. Paul Lawler who saved the day by proposing an inspired solution. We would make the mission statement: “The Global Methodist Church exists to make disciples of Jesus Christ and spread scriptural holiness across the globe.” Then we would use the following as a vision statement: “Through the empowerment of the Holy Spirit, the Global Methodist Church envisions multiplying disciples of Jesus Christ throughout the earth who flourish in scriptural holiness as we worship passionately, love extravagantly, and witness boldly.” The motion passed overwhelmingly.
Other Highlights. At the close of the conference, we consecrated six new bishops: the Rev. Kimba Evariste of the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Rev. John Pena Auta of Nigeria, the Rev. Leah Hidde-Gregory of Mid Texas, the Rev. Kenneth Levingston of Trinity, the Rev. Carolyn Moore of North Georgia, and the Rev. Jeff Greenway of Allegheny West. The consecration service, written by my colleague Dr. Tesia Mallory, was a testimony to the faithfulness of those who had persevered in service to the faith once and for all entrusted to the saints. God was doing something new and beautiful in our midst.
There were many high points during the conference. Worship was joyful and Spirit-filled. The first Sunday we worshiped together, people came forward to kneel before the cross. Some offered prayers of thanksgiving, others of repentance, still others of supplication for the work before us. We also sang from a new hymnal, O For a Heart to Praise My God, edited by the Rev. Sterling Allen. Throughout the week the singing and preaching were powerful. Many expressed a palpable sense of God’s presence.
We honored the Rev. Keith Boyette for his faithful service in launching this new denomination. No one has put his or her shoulder to the wheel with more determination than Boyette. He has led with the heart of a pastor and the expertise of an attorney. He has shown calm amid numerous storms. Navigating the requirements to establish churches in multiple countries with various legal provisions has been no cakewalk. It was fitting for us to express our gratitude to Keith on the occasion of his retirement and the launch of this new denomination.
Bishop Luis Palomo of the Evangelical Methodist Church of Costa Rica extended gracious hospitality to us during our time in Costa Rica. Twice we worshiped with friends from this sister denomination, once at a nearby convention center and once at the Colegio Metodista de Costa Rica, a primary and secondary school established in 1921. During the second of these services, the Global Methodist Church and the Evangelical Methodist Church of Costa Rica established a covenant agreement.
As legislative committee work continued, other conference guests participated in mission and evangelism opportunities in the San José region. In partnership with the Methodist Church of Costa Rica, dozens worked with local churches and a children’s home. On several occasions, GMC guests and local Costa Rican leaders participated in an evangelism workshop led by Spirit & Truth and then headed out to pray for people and share the Good News of Jesus on the streets of local neighborhoods. Many noted they had not experienced evangelism and mission incorporated into a general conference before. These tangible commitments during a busy convening conference reveal the sort of mission-focused DNA God is birthing in the GMC.
For the Generations to Come. One of the most meaningful parts of the conference for me was getting to know some of the faithful and gifted young leaders coming up in the Global Methodist Church. We will be in good hands with these up-and-coming men and women of faith. I was impressed with their maturity, calm under pressure, and commitment to orthodox Wesleyan faith and practice. God has blessed us with anointed young leaders who will carry the Good News forward with integrity and reach the lost for Christ.
As we closed our time together, I thought about the young lady who kicked off our proceedings by reciting the Apostles’ Creed. She represents generations who are to come, generations who will confess the church’s historic faith, who will encounter the Holy Spirit, who will be changed by God’s grace and know their redeemer lives. My prayer is that a century from now, Global Methodist Churches across the globe, in places unreached by the message of the Gospel today, will continue the work of raising up new generations for Christ.
The Methodist tradition is a tradition of hope, even optimism. We have hope in a God who saves, who makes grace available to all people, who forms us by his Holy Spirit into the image of Christ. We hope with great anticipation for the salvation of the lost today and in future generations. We hope in the return of Christ and the full establishment of his kingdom on earth as it is in heaven. We are audacious even to hope that God can and will work through imperfect people such as us to form a new body dedicated to making disciples and spreading scriptural holiness across the globe.
David F. Watson is Lead Editor of Firebrand. He serves as Academic Dean and Professor of New Testament at United Theological Seminary in Dayton, Ohio. This essay was first published by Firebrand. Reprinted by permission. Photo by Steve Beard.
by Steve | Oct 29, 2024 | Uncategorized
Forward in Faith
By Rob Renfroe
November/December 2024
In the airport, on my way to the convening General Conference of the Global Methodist Church in San José, Costa Rica, I had a remarkable conversation with a delegate to the conference. He told me what he hoped the conference would decide on an issue that was very important to him. But he was quick to add that he knew good people who love Jesus and his church saw the issue differently. He concluded by saying, “Whatever happens, I’m going to trust the General Conference.”
I had the same conversation, practically verbatim, with another delegate shortly after arriving, before a single vote had been taken. She ended her remarks with the same sentiment. “But whatever happens, I’ll trust what the General Conference decides.”
Each time I responded by asking, “Did you hear the words you just spoke – that you’re going to trust whatever the General Conference decides?” They both nodded. Then I asked, “Have you ever said those words before in your life – that you’ll just trust the General Conference?” Both smiled, shook their heads, and said, “No, never.”
People ask me what was the convening conference like? That’s a big question that could be answered in many ways. But the greatest difference from the previous eight General Conferences I have attended was the way delegates trusted each other. There were significant differences on several issues, the most emotional ones concerned the episcopacy – what the role of bishops would be and who should be considered for that role. But no one even hinted they were suspicious of the motives of those with different views. The debate was always polite and respectful. And the delegates all evidenced a genuine appreciation for other viewpoints and exuded what appeared to be a real humility as they advocated for their positions.
That was an answer to my prayers, literally. For the past several months when people asked me what I most hoped would come out of General Conference, I answered, “Two things. First, I want us to leave San José unified.” By that I did not mean that we would all have the same opinions but that we would all feel that we were on the same team, that we would all believe the decision-making process had been fair and transparent, and that there would be no reason to suspect that special interest groups were making some kind of play for influence or power.
In the past it was not that way. But in San José, no one questioned whether the bishops had cut special deals with groups they wanted to promote. No one wondered if delegates from outside the U.S. were being blocked from participating. No one wore a special ribbon or button to advance an agenda. No one castigated another delegate for using the wrong language. And no one felt the need to keep track and report if any ethnic group or gender was speaking too much. The entire time was an experience of people simply treating each other like brothers and sisters – and trusting the General Conference.
Good News has encouraged pastors, parishioners and congregations to join the Global Methodist Church ever since its creation over two years ago. We still do. In fact, now more than ever. We have met, we have decided who we are, and we have determined how we will conduct our business. And in complete sincerity, I can tell you, “You can trust the GMC.”
You can trust the GMC’s doctrine – it is centered on Christ and committed to the Bible as the Word of God. You can trust its commitment to inclusivity – the six newly elected bishops included two black men from Africa and two white women, one black man, and one white man from the United States. You can trust that the GMC’s decision-making process is soaked in prayer, open, and transparent.
There’s something else you can trust. The GMC’s leadership. I know all six bishops elected in San José, as well as the two who have been serving actively for the past two years. They are persons of deep faith. They have led growing churches. They love people and they love Jesus. They are mature and thoughtful persons. They are leaders. I respect them. I admire them. I am inspired by them. I can learn from them. And most importantly, I trust them. All of them. That was my other hope and prayer for General Conference – that we would elect leaders who would serve our new church well. I can report wholeheartedly that I believe we did. Thanks be to God, by his grace, we did!
What am I praying now for the Global Methodist Church? First, I’m praying that we will be a humble church. I pray we will never forget that apart from Jesus we can do nothing, that we must remain attached to the vine if we are to be fruitful, that God’s ways are not our ways and we must humble ourselves before his Word and seek him on our knees.
I pray we will be a servant church. During my ministry, I worked hard to be the best preacher of the Gospel I could be. I believe in the power of God’s word proclaimed clearly and unapologetically. But I believe the best way to reach secular people and impact our culture will not be by preaching better sermons, building bigger buildings, or creating slicker social media campaigns. We will reach people when, like Jesus, we empty ourselves and become servants – servants who are willing to go to a cross because we care about people and their needs. When people think of Christians and instead of thinking “those are people who vote a certain way,” “those are people who judge others,” “those are people who tell the rest of us how we should live,” and instead they think, “those are the people in my community who love others,” that’s when people will be ready to hear our message. When they think, “those are the people in our community who care for single mothers and their children,” “those are the people who help addicts get clean,” “those are the people who feed the hungry, bring hope to inmates in prison, and work in homeless shelters” – when that’s what people think of us, I’m convinced they will want to know why we do what we do. And when we tell them the reason is Jesus, I think they’ll listen.
I pray we will be a church that is open to the Spirit of God. Yes, open to the gifts of the Spirit and passionate worship, absolutely. But I’m thinking of something else – being open to however the Spirit wants us to reach the lost. No one was more formal, high church, and proper than John Wesley. But somehow this uptight, Anglican priest was open to the Spirit of God – so much so that he preached in the open fields, in the coal mines, and in the city streets when it made him feel “even more vile” – because the Spirit told him to do so. God needed Wesley to do a new thing because God was doing a new thing. And, praise God, Wesley was willing to follow the Spirit.
What will God’s Spirit call GMC pastors and congregations to do to reach the lost in our time? I don’t know. But this is a new day in the U.S. We live in a secular, post-modern culture that is suspicious and antagonistic to the Gospel and those who proclaim it. So, God will need to do a new thing. And his people will have to listen to the Spirit and follow him into a new way of bringing the Good News to people who will not respond to the same way we have always done things. I pray the Spirit of God will lead us and the spirit of our spiritual father John Wesley will inspire us to follow the Spirit’s call into the new day God has waiting for his church and the world he loves.
As we close down Good News and as I write this final editorial, there is some sadness within my heart. But more than that, I am grateful for how God has used Good News for nearly sixty years. I feel privileged to have been part of its ministry. Most of all, I feel hopeful for the people called Methodist. Hopeful because we can trust the GMC and we can be confident in its leadership. Hopeful because we can be confident that God created the GMC and he will bless our efforts to lift up the saving work of Jesus and to bring grace and truth to the world. Hopeful because I am convinced that if we are a humble church, a servant community, and a people who are open to his Spirit, what God will accomplish through the GMC will amaze us all. To God our Father, to Jesus the Son, and to the Holy Spirit be all honor, power and glory, now and forever more. Amen.
by Steve | Sep 25, 2024 | Uncategorized
On Wednesday September 25, the assembly of the Convening General Conference of The Global Methodist Church elected their first slate of Bishops-elect for the period of 2024-2026. The elections took place at its meeting in San Jose, Costa Rica. The Bishops-elect are (left-right) Kimba Everiste (Democratic Republic of the Congo); John Pena Auta (Nigeria); Leah Hidde-Gregory (Mid Texas); Kenneth Levingston (Trinity); Carolyn Moore (North Georgia); and Jeff Greenway (Allegheny West).
