Selected responses
“To Where will they Go?” Column
è Once again, you hit where I'm livin'! I left the U.M. Church several years ago because I too was disgusted with what I perceived as a general disregard of the Discipline. I went back to the denomination in which I'd grown up (a congregational call system), and found out I'm a United Methodist through and through. I returned to the U.M. Church, now convinced that it is where I belong. All this talk about conservatives leaving the U.M. Church is fascinating to kick around, but I don't see anyone where I am seriously considering leaving (that includes clergy and laity). I think we realize that running away from the challenge of having a part in transforming the U.M. Church is a mistake. God brought me back for a reason. I think it has something to do with being a faithful pastor in a denomination that doesn't stand in the way of that. My hope and prayer is that those of us who consider ourselves "conservative Methodists" will stay and work for transformation (or perhaps re-transformation?), and not run away to gather with those who think like us and act like us and are us. The greatest surprise to me in returning to the U.M. Church was to find that those who could be described as liberal love the Lord as much as I do, and want to serve Him just as passionately as me. The greatest challenge has been remembering those facts, and living accordingly. If the conservatives leave the U.M. Church, I suppose I would go with them. Yet, I'd much rather stay, and focus on doing what God has called and gifted me to do.
è The usual
brilliance, the usual laughs at the political carrot waiving. For my part I
like the grass roots bulk of the Methodist Church, but I don't really care much
for the separatists in their ranks (e.g., some of the Good News
folk). I'm not sure I'd want to join the "Good News
Church." The old Asbury, the current Wesley Biblical are way more
modernist than the Nazarenes, I think.
è May I join the Methodists if they go with Option 3? I'd
love to join an affiliation of Wesley's offspring if they were just that -- an
affiliation. I currently pastor an independent, former Methodist,
contemporary church in the corn fields east of IWU. And I'm a
Wesleyan trained/ordained minister. If you would kindly bear with the
chips on my shoulder, I must say that I have grown weary of ties to a
denomination (I mean the Wesleyan one) that expects much from congregations (a
hefty USF percentage, trust clauses, "important" leadership
training blah blah blah for pastors, etc). Yet I have perceived little
help/guidance/accountability trickling back down. I could exhaust
myself trying to meet denom expectations, but when it's all said and done,
what do I or my congregation receive? An invitation to visit the
new, jim-dandy headquarters in suburb-ville, Indiana! But enough whining. There must
a balance. On paper, Wesley looked heavy-handed. A bit of a
spiritual dictator who insisted on coherence to his ways. If you were a
Methodist 218 years ago, you did things John Wesley's way, or you weren't
a Methodist. I doubt that would work in many American denoms today,
nor would I want it to. Such top-down pressure can squeeze the wrong (or
right) persons until, Ta-dah! -- the Wesleyan Church is born. I
think we live in a time when more Christians question the need for either
top-heavy or heavy-handed leadership. Yet each pastor and cong.
needs accountability and a pool of resources. So how does a denom remain
a denom in ways that serve ministers and parishioners, without growing into an
overgrown system draining the resources from its congregations? There may
be mode! ls (the Vineyard Association of churches comes to mind), but I doubt
an existing denom would simply morph into a loose affiliation. To
their credit, I believe many denominational leaders think through these
questions regularly. This
Wesleyan likes an Option 3 affiliation -- for myself, my fellow
Wesleyans, and any Christ-centered Methodist looking for a new home.
è You
non-Methodists always think we conservative Methodists are itching to leave our
denomination. We’re not—we plan to
stay and transform it. Sorry—we’re not
going to join you Wesleyans, you should come home to the church you left in
1800s over slavery. In fact that is a
perfect illustration of today’s situation.
You left over our weak stance on slavery before the Civil War and within
a decade the ME church had lined up with your position. You Wesleyans just did not have the
patience to stay and help the whole denomination change. Today’s conservative Methodists have greater
patience—we’ll stay and change the denomination. We are already are a
majority at the grass roots level, now to gain control of the power
structures. So don’t count on us
leaving. Rather count on a revitalized
evangelistic Methodist church in the future that is more conservative and
aggressive than many Wesleyan churches.
So the question “Where will they go” boomerangs right back at you
Wesleyans (and Nazarenes, and Free Methodists). As the UM church becomes a major conservative and evangelistic
force in this country why possible reason do you have to continue to insist on
being separate from your mother church?
Come home—your reasons for existence are now gone—or about to be gone. Your large growing churches are already less
conservative than our large evangelical churches. Perhaps the only way for Wesleyans to stay conservative is to
join us again—otherwise you will float out into the sea of generic
Christianity. (A former Wesleyan not
United Methodist).
è Of course
I think it could be positive but unlikely that they will join the Wesleyans. I'm all for a getting everyone together into
one big happy holiness family but it is unlikely to happen because the people
who make that decision are the people who would be most likely to lose their
current position and maybe even their job.
And who would really hold this back?
Not the GSs. As a matter of fact
they are the ones who stand to gain the most from this. It would be a pretty sweet legacy to say,
"I'm one of the guys who made the merger happen". In the Wesleyan church we still talk about
"the merger" like a sacred event.
The GSs also are in the best position to have their professional
interests looked after. The people
who will drag their heels the worst are the guys in line to be GS. They know they are going to wake up the day
after a merger 80 rungs back down the ladder and they will work hard to see
that it doesn't happen. So what do I
think we should realistically do? (OK maybe it's not that realistic
but...) I think they will form their
own deal and I think we should offer to help. They will need denominational leaders - we should offer to have
our hot shots mentor theirs. If they
don't get to take their stuff with them we should offer to let them meet in our
facilities where that is possible. They
may need S.r and especially staff pastors - We should lend them some. Not permanently but on an interim
basis. We should open the doors to our
schools as wide as we can. Allow them to have denominational reps on our
campuses and add any courses we need to so that their education in our schools
meets their denominations ordination requirements. We should give them some cash and/or property with which to
establish a denominational headquarters...(comments on the building omitted)
We should open up our
denominational benefits to them, let them attend district training stuff at a
discount, invite them to our youth events, etc. Why should we do this? Not
for the sake of cash - it will cost.
Not for the sake of moving our denomination forward - we will actually
miss out on picking up lost sheep from Methodist folds. Not for the sake marketing. A little denomination called Methodist still
has more name recognition than Wesleyan.
(Where I'm from you say I'm Wesleyan and people say, "I'm a
Pieces"). We do it because it's
the right thing to do. We do it
because they are our brothers in faith and doctrine. We do it because what makes the universal church stronger makes
the Wesleyan Church stronger. We do it
because they are taking a stand that we need to support. If this type of program were successful
think about what it could mean in other denominations that are falling apart
morally. We would be laying down a road
map out for churches and individuals who feel morally compelled to leave their
denominational fold. I'm not talking
about the Baptists and Pentecostals and other solid denominations with whom we differ
some of the finer points of doctrine I'm talking about the denominations who
are at a place morally and doctrinally where it's hard to call them Christian
with a straight face. If we think their stance is right we should support them
in it whether we stand to gain anything from it or not.
è You forgot to consult your California attorney friend before you wrote it. The case is a very narrow one that isn't likely to get much play nationally. Interesting enough, the initial decision from the Court of Appeal came down on a Monday, one day after two of the Los Angeles Diocese Episcopal churches withdrew and joined the African Anglicans. I exchanged e-mails with the Rector in the Long Beach church to make sure he was aware of Methodist case. He was, but did point out to me that they had announced their decision a day before the case came out. That was either providential or they had direct contact with one of the attorneys for the Methodists who probably got word on Friday. Depends on your level of cynicism. Both the Long Beach church and the Newport Beach church are sitting on gold in terms of property value. The bottom line is that this is a very California oriented decision and hinges on a California statute that changes the presumptions regarding whether a trust "clause" that is silent on the issue of recovability is presumed to be revocable or irrevocable. California has a statue were the presumption is towards revocability. Virtually every other state has the presumption that a trust clause is irrevocable unless it explicitly says it is revocable. Even with the presumption, only a California corporation can take advantage of it. In our case, there is only the Pacific Southwest corporation, Skyline and one other church here in L.A. that is separately incorporated. For these three entities, they could take advantage of the unique California presumption and revoke their trust clauses (since they don't explicitly say they are irrevocable). Unless every other state follows California trust law, this will be limited to California. By the way, I think the Episcopal churches will win too--for the very same reason. Serves the North American Episcopals right. The LA archbishop performed a marriage of some gay priests and obviously expresses disdain for those who want to maintain biblical integrity. That was the straw for the three breakaways. They are now part of the Anglicans in Uganda I believe.
è In light of your recent "strike" I thought I would drop you
a note and let you know that your writings are often discussed on
www.naznet.com. I did a post on one of the forums about your most recent
column and have
already had several thoughtful replies.
http://www.naznet.com/cgi-bin/ceilidh.exe/fellowship/bresee/?C845163ca7jO6-5552-13280+1e.htm
è I can see
them joining up with another denomination. Just like the early rebels in
the American revolution...when you brake away from the mother ship you always
feel like you're kinda’ doing something that's wrong. But, in this case, joining with another denomination may help
mend the 'guilty conscience.'
è Once again you got me thinking. Why do we have to deed property “up the line?” What advantage does the church get out of this? The litigation issue is a new matter—things have changed and we need to change with it. But I have little hope for change. All we get is new “initiatives” new “programs” new “seminars” and new shiny pictures…. There are few new ideas from my denomination’s leaders.
è Interesting article. But the real topic of the article is neither the UM thing nor forms of government. The real issue is “Protestant splintering.” Henry VIII’s adulterous lust is the foundation of the Anglican church’s split from the mother church. Though John Wesley never intended it, his followers loved inheriting his power and thus split from the Anglicans. In America the Wesleyan Methodists split form the Methodist Episcopal church as did the Free Methodists. The Nazarenes were not an actual denominational splinter but they swept in and stole most of their members who were discontented holiness people in the UM church. But we are not the end of the line for we’ve had our own splits in the likes the Pennsylvania Wesleyan Methodists and the New York Pilgrims “come-outers who have all been plagued by splits of ever-more conservative groups since. When will we understand that splitting from a denomination is sin no matter what the issue. And nothing comes of it but more sin, strife, contention and lost opportunities for Christ. Protestants should have never left the True Church in the reformation. Luther got everything he wanted—it just took 100 years instead of ten. Is the Lutheran church any better off than the Roman Catholic Church today? Are the Wesleyans any better off than the Methodists? Are the New York Pilgrims any better off than the Wesleyans? Methodists should stay in their church and work to reform the church. The problems in Methodism are at the exact points where the Roman Catholic church stands firm! Want to protect orthodox theology and a conservative stance on abortion, gay marriage the virgin birth and the validity of the resurrection????? Return to Rome—that will be our only protection in the future. Splintering does not promote conservative doctrine—going home to Rome is the only answer.
è Your article raised lots of discussion around here but not on the direct topic. Who cares where the Methodists go? All our discussion has been about polity and every single one on this staff thinks the connectional form of government is the future. But how do you engineer a switch form the old style we now have? We see no way. What we all think is happening is that new independent connectional/association churches are being plated at such a fast rate that in 20 years all we’ll have left will be diminishing denominational churches connectional/association churches will be the largest (non)“denomination” in America. The association is the wave of the future. And if you are accurate (that the Wesleyan church provides affiliate status where property is held locally) your denomination may be the only one in America that stands to gain from this massive unwinding of the denominational ball of string. My question to you is, “Can your Wesleyan churches deeded to your denomination choose to switch to affiliate status—or are they locked in forever?
è Only a few conservative United Methodists will ever leave the UM church. I know only a few in the Good News movement who would really leave. Perhaps if a major action occurred some might try, but those of us in the UM church love the church (and even love the liberals). We’re just tired of the liberal leadership and lack of discipline in the church. But things are going our way in the last ten years. St. Luke’s is an exception as is California. The rest of us will stay where we belong.
è We in the Evangelical Covenant Church have been quietly absorbing scores of United Methodists for the last 15 years. For example, we have only six congregations in the state of Oklahoma. But all six of them are led by former UMC pastors—combined average attendance is 13,000. While we are not technically Wesleyan we do have a common pietistic heritage (Methodism emerged out of the influence that Moravians had in the Anglican Church. Historically, we are the product of Moravian influence in the Church of Sweden). The ECC grew 47% in the last decade and the former United Methodists, among many others, have played a significant role in that growth. Our polity is a hybrid of Congregationalism and Presbyterianism. Local congregations own and control their own property and call their own pastors. However, all credentialing is controlled by the denomination and clergy are members of a common Ministerium to which they are accountable.
è While I agree that the court decision in
2) You forgot what is more important than the property issue -- the pension issue. Maybe churches would go, but pastors would lose that pension plan. And I will say that our denomination has a great pension plan. This is not what would make me do or not do something, but I believe this is what is keeping both the liberals and conservatives within the denomination.
Comments to this column and no longer being posted… but if you wish to make a remark to Keith Drury click here