I am about the same age as the United Methodist Church, but I am a 21st century convert to the faith. I did not grow up in United Methodism. I have had to learn it after joining the club.
When I wanted to understand what being a United Methodist was all about, I went back and started reading John Wesley.
More and more, I am coming to understand that was the wrong way to go if I wanted to get a good grip on United Methodism. The John Wesley of United Methodism has little in common with the John Wesley found in his own writings.
I’m also aware that our Book of Discipline is a bad place to find the meaning of United Methodism. It is a jumble of different materials and ideas, not all of which fit together and not all of which any United Methodist I know treats as authoritative.
So, I have been trying recently to distill from my experiences and reading the essence of United Methodism. Here are the core commitments of United Methodism as best I understand them:
- Trinitarian worship of God
- Social action and social concern
- Mutual emotional support for members
- Claiming to welcome everyone into our worship and fellowship
- Non-judgmentalism
- Middle to upper-middle class sensibilities and norms
- Cultural accommodation
- Desire for success and relevance
- Obsession with polity coupled with active resistance to rules and leaders
My window on United Methodism is narrow. I admit this readily. But I have tried to get a wider view by reading and engaging with conversations across United Methodism for the last 5 years or so.
I’m open to modifying my list, but as it is actually practiced in the United States, these are the marks of United Methodism that I see.
John,
Interesting that you would post this. A friend of mind is presenting some thoughts on Sunday at a leadership training session and he asked me the following question:
“What does your vision for the UMC look like in the near future?”
My reply was
In some circles what I am suggesting is called the Emergent Church model but I think it is only called that because they don’t understand what has happened in the past.
My vision of the United Methodist Church in the future is one that reflects what it once was, when it changed the course of history. It is a church that exists outside the walls of the sanctuary and offers to the people hope and promise.
It is a denomination that reflects Jesus’ call to the ministry, to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to build housing for the homeless, and bring relief to the oppressed. It is more than simply doing programs in which we count numbers, if for no other reason that there is no reason to count the number of souls that are saved.
John Wesley went outside the walls of the church to preach the Gospel because the people inside the church really didn’t want to hear it and, eventually, he was barred from doing so anyway.
Will the church of the future resemble the classes that John Wesley began or the home church of the early movement called the “Way” and reflected in Acts?
Or will the church resemble the bureaucratic structure created by the Romans and reinforced by time?
Coincidentally, those are some of the thoughts that I will vocalize on Saturday during the worship service at Grace (Grannie Annie’s Kitchen – 8 am) and then in my message on Sunday at Sloatsburg. I will try to have it up on my blog by Saturday.
May God bless the preaching and hearing of the word, Tony.
I have posted the blog “The Parts of the Church” (http://heartontheleft.wordpress.com/2013/01/26/parts-of-the-church-2/). It is not what I thought I would be writing about when I posted my comment about what it means to be a Methodist but I do think that it does address the question.
That is an American, and maybe to a lesser extent European, POV on United Methodism. I wonder what sorts of thoughts you would hear from an average African UM, regarding culture and class sensibilities, obsession with polity and desire for relevance.
No argument. I make no claims to have any idea about the UMC outside the USA. I may not even be right about the UMC outside the Midwest.
This is great, John. I think you’ve articulated our true position well, which makes this a bit sad to read.
I wonder if there’s something tying several of these together. Especially as you mention upper middle-class sensibilities and norms. Our first Discipline, in 1784, stated:
“Let all our chapels be built plain and decent; but not more expensive than is absolutely unavoidable: otherwise the necessity of raising money will make rich men necessary to us. But if so, we must be dependent upon them, yea; and governed by them. And then farewell to the Methodist discipline, if not doctrine too.”
How many of those attending GC this year had personal incomes (housing included – since the rest of the nation pays for their own housing) greater than $75,000? According to the Census Bureau’s 2006 numbers, they would be in the top 10% of all Americans. How many had personal incomes greater than $100,000? They would be in the top 5%. I would guess at least 75% of our GC representatives are in the top 10%. Most are probably in the top 5%.
We’re governed by the rich. And so farewell to the Methodist discipline and doctrine, too. I think these may have been prophetic words.
Is there any room for small groups or covenant discipleship in the list?
My problem with putting them on the list, Joey, is that I do not see them as normative in the UMC. They are talked about more than they are practiced. I could be wrong. This is just my perspective.
John,
A good but sad post. One of the more discerning comments that I have seen on the development of United Methodism noted that many of our leaders during and subsequent to the uniting of denominations in 1968 were focused on becoming a mainline church and getting rid of that antiquated Wesleyanism. They have been remarkably successful in the U.S., as you point out. I am not certain that the U.S. mainline Christian churches have a future. To the extent that we are part of that, the future of our individual churches will be building on the ruins of the denomination.
Good beginning, John. I suspect that it will be a work in progress. For those of us who have been UM for many years, I think your list offers a freshness that we would not be so good at including if you were to ask us.
I would say that part of our love-hate relationship to polity is our unhappy marriage between episcopacy and democracy. We have bishops, but don’t let them lead. See, for instance, GC 2012. We say accountability matters for the mission of the church, but when we try to make that a reality (either for elders or bishops), we collectively balk. Thank you for your reflections. I might also add to your observation about non-judgementalism “a culture of nice.” And that isn’t necessarily a good thing.
An accurate observation of the present state of the American UMC. It makes me sad that we say we want to make disciples for Christ for the transformation of the world, then we spend most of our resources calculating our organization. A few churches are adding highly committed disciples. Most are accommodating the lowest common denominator. Most who do the math see subtraction. Spiritual – social service equation is unbalanced. Only a few envision the dividends of intersecting values that are integral on their own. Bishops are overseers of the organization. Evangelists are prophets that show how things might be. An evangelist who tries to create organizational structure creates chaos. A Bishop who tries to be an evangelist causes confusion in the structure.
Hey John,
I am glad you posted your thoughts and added to the wider conversation of the ‘what is United Methodism’ discussion. First, I would just like to say that I think you hit the nail on the head in our movement away from Wesleyan teaching and method (such as discipleship classes). It would be good for the church to get back to that. Second, the Discipline does have many contradictory and poorly written statements in it that do not aid the connectionalism or welcoming heart of United Methodism.
In response to your list I would like to say I have visited many UM churches in almost every state in the union (missing Delaware and Virginia) along with churches in the Bahamas and Haiti. I can assuredly say this list does not match my experience of UM everywhere. In every setting I have seen a trinitarian understanding of God, infant baptism, social concern (though not always accompanied by action outside prayer), good hospitality, and a desire for relevance. However, the middle to upper-middle class sensibilities are very centralized to urban caucasian churches in my experience with non cross cultural settings. In short the UM is to diverse to be limited to such an exclusion of understanding. The final thing on your list the obsession with polity is also centralized to larger churches in my experience. Smaller churches, cross cultural/ethnic churches and rural churches are much more low church oriented and have a decrease in polity obsession. I would also say that even in the Midwest the lack of Discipleship classes and small groups is less do to the church and more due to the Midwest culture. Having grown up in this same culture I saw a lack of these things in almost every denomination I attended.
God bless you in your faith journey. It seems to me you are really grappling with some deep things. I would simply add, ‘Be the change you wish to see in the United Methodist Church.’
Peace,
tyler
Thank you for offering some counter-balance to my limited perspective.