Renewal without Responsibility
Dr. Timothy Tennent is the President of Asbury Theological Seminary in Kentucky. His blog has been featured before at HX, but his recent blog posts merit examination as they form a narrative of promised renewal instead of a more accurate narrative of responsibility in the United Methodist Church.
Recently, Dr. Tennent wrote with urgency about the need for a new Wesleyan movement because Methodism is so bad off:
From the North American perspective things look quite gloomy since the largest Wesleyan movement on this continent, the United Methodist Church, is in such deep crisis…The United Methodist Church has been in the death spiral for nearly a half a century, seen primarily in the loss of millions of members, the dramatic decline in catechesis, and a diminished enthusiasm about evangelism.
Previously, Dr. Tennent had written of the need for this movement because evangelicals need freedom to act:
We need to completely re-birth the Wesleyan movement in North America. Whether it is a separate movement or we are given a new name within the United Methodist Church, we must be set free to do serious evangelism, church planting, re-missionizing and catechesis. I remain convinced that we can renew the Wesleyan movement in North America in 25 years if we are just given the opportunity to do so.
Both of these posts indicate that Traditionalists and conservative evangelicals in the United Methodist Church have tried to be included but have not been allowed or free to do things as they wish.
As a Progressive who has been on the “other side” of this conversation, I wonder how can Tennent not see that Conservative Evangelicals have owned the denomination for decades and have not reached success despite their best efforts?
Bought: Successes in the UMC
One of the commentators on Dr. Tennent’s blog pointed out that:
Ever since the anti-LGBT language was introduced into the BoD [in 1972], the language has been increasingly become more restrictive and anti-LGBT. In 1988, the General Conference successfully removed pluralism as an official tenant of our faith, declared scripture to be primary, and re-wrote the theological task section of the BoD (which made it more in line with evangelical thought).
During the past few decades, the Walk to Emmaus has been viewed as wildly successful and we have them due in no small part to the effort of Maxie Dunnam. The Disciple Bible study is also viewed as wildly successful. We have recovered Wesley’s Three Simple Rules. More books have been written on John Wesley and Wesleyan theology in the past few decades than anyone can keep up with!
I know for a fact that we Asburians like to brag that our seminary graduates each year more UMs who go on to be clergy than all the 13 official UM seminaries combined! In the past 40 years, we have seen the emergence of Good News, the Confessing Movement, the Mission Society, Bristol House Books, Renew, the IRD and UMAction, Transforming congregations AND Lifewatch. All of that, but we are in the place we are as a denomination.
Simply put, counter to the narrative of evangelical oppression in the UMC over the last 40 years, what we actually see is continual ownership. Some of it is good work for the whole denomination, to be clear, but to claim that that the UMC has not been owned by conservative evangelicals over the years is simply unsupported by the facts.
Broke: Schismatic Structure
Today, traditionalists not only have the perceived majority in the United Methodist Church but they also operate parallel denominational resources without oversight or accountability.
Traditionalists began creating their parallel reality within the UMC a long time ago. Through the Mission Society (1984 parallel to the General Board of Global Missions), Bristol House Books (1987 parallel to Abingdon), and the RENEW network (1989 parallel to UM Women), traditionalists created their own parallel structure that provides books, women’s fellowship, and missionaries for congregations to support outside of United Methodist oversight, accountability, or connectional leadership.
Far from the post-2012 Biblical Obedience movement inciting a schism, these structures and others like them have been syphoning off the evangelical spirit from the UMC since they began. When Dr. Tennent talks about big tent Methodism being the way to go, he neglects to point out that traditionalists propped up their own tents a long time ago.
Simply put, conservative evangelicals have had free reign over curriculum, missions, and other incentives to contribute to Methodist-tangential causes.
For Sale: One Denomination
Simply put, even with all their theological, social, and parallel successes, Traditionalists have not saved the UMC. Progressives share the blame, of course, but not total responsibility like Tennent seems to say.
While it would be convenient to be like Congress and blame only the minority party, that doesn’t apply here. Even accounting for the inequality in representation on some of the major Methodist committees, it’s a difference between 3%-10%–hardly anywhere close to a majority.
No. They bought it and broke it into two churches. And now some schismatics want to sell it.
As outlined before, schism has as its poker chip an incredible amount of money. Most of the proposals by conservative pastors for schism have the progressives losing institutional structures even if they keep their churches and pensions. The worst of the unity efforts allows Conservative Evangelicals to leave the denomination and take their buildings with them. And in the meantime, one of the schismatic churches is withholding their church tithe even as they seek to go around the connectional system to choose their new pastor.
Tennent doesn’t outright call for schism but the essential elements of it are here–and Dr. Tennent’s Asbury is well positioned to benefit from Traditionalist clergy and churches that are suddenly flush with cash. A network of Wesleyan churches freed from connectional obligations and no longer having to apologize for whatever the General Board of Church and Society has said this week? That would be a dream home indeed.
Renewal: Love it or List it?
Renewal in the UMC seems to be to step away from the group and build a bigger group that then takes over the smaller group and blames all its internal problems on the smaller group, and finally sells the assets of the group to start a new group.
And it’s really too bad. Renewal could have meant so much more.
We really are best when we work together. When the church needs some renovations and some elements are long in the tooth or out of whack, progressives and conservatives together do really great work. I yearn for a United Methodist Church that has the evangelical zeal combined with a relevant social witness that is a headlight to culture, not a tail-light behind it. I yearn for a church with the same freedom of thought as freedom of innovative action.
I love that Church and I’m not ready to list it “for sale” yet. The potential is there.
But I believe it begins with each side disclosing how they have contributed to the current situation, being honest about where the schism actually began, and admitting we have more non-negotiables in common than we are willing to admit.
Conservative Evangelicals have flipped the UMC. Let’s figure out how to love the house we are in instead of selling it and starting over.
Thoughts?
Jeremy, I won’t disagree that Tennant is missing the ecclesiastical control that conservative groups have had in the UMC. And I’m not sure that what Tennant is proposing would ever be accomplished through ecclesiastical manipulation.
If there is a place where traditional Wesleyanism is stymied, it would be at the local church, congregational level. There is a vibrant movement within the UMC to recapture/rebrand Wesleyan hallmarks. And in many cases, it is not bad stuff. There are a few bad eggs in the bunch, but the majority of what I have seen is solid. And could be adapted to the spectrum of UMethodism. But the problem is not the scholarship.
In the churches that I have served, there is a common refrain I hear. There is a pride-filled declaration among UM attenders that, “We aren’t very Methodist.” Yet they faithfully attend a UM church regularly. As I analyze the theology that is mumbled (because no one wants to claim that they have a personal theology), I don’t hear Wesleyan tenets. I hear a hodge-podge of theologies and traditions Macgyvered into a working belief system.
I find that I have to convert modern UMethodists to a traditional understanding of what we hold to be basic beliefs. And that is without regard to any of the current issues of governance. I have to convince people that a traditional understanding of Methodism is a good and right thing. It transformed lives in the beginning. It was a social justice voice. It was a community building dynamo.
But that brings me to a point that comes through in your writing. I feel that traditionalist and conservative aren’t necessarily interchangeable terms. One example of this that I face is that people believe that “traditional” UMethodism is progressive. I encounter more conservative people in the churches I serve and their reluctance to claim being Methodist would be because the denomination is considered traditionally liberal.
As a traditionalist, I don’t agree with many of the positions of conservatives. I don’t find comfort in the extremes that they work from, any more than I find comfort on the other end of the spectrum. There is a class of traditionalists that don’t fall into the conservative label.
Hi Todd, thanks for commenting and I hope you are well.
I don’t give up hope for a clear systematic theology among the people, but I’m far more supportive of naming the constellations. I think our role as resident theologians is to accurately describe each star (point of Christian theology) and help people craft their own constellations that are held together in Wesleyan accountability. I think the authority of the church has become less monolithic and that leads to our role more as guides than as measures. I commend you for your persistence in this difficult work.
Your last line about being a traditionalist that isn’t neatly a conservative is an important critique, and I thank you for it. I think the term is best differentiated from being “traditional” because whenever you add “ist” to something, it takes that term to an extreme (Islamist, Christianist, and others…but not Buddhist!). So the difference is that one can hold and promote traditional Christian (or Wesleyan) viewpoints and values, but there isn’t a rigidity with them when church and culture collide. Traditionalists oppose women in ministry, whereas Traditional Christians do not. Traditionalists oppose LGBT inclusion, whereas Traditional Christians do not. I’ve expounded a bit on that in my post on Orthodoxy, but it kinda applies here. So in short, I’m not sure what is a better term for either party, and labels fall short, but as far as practical usage, I definitely see a difference as a Traditionalist (in my usage) is more rigid than someone who is conservative evangelical.
Blessings, ~Jeremy
A commentator on the Progressive Methodists Facebook group (a public group) has the following to say about the difference:
If there were an option, I would give you a thumbs up on the above.
I just saw Dr. Tennent’s article today.
There are several other branches of Conservative-Evangelical Methodism in the US today (Free Methodists, Wesleyans, Nazarenes) if it were really as simple as “we need to get back to biblical orthodoxy” then these branches would be exploding and not in numerical decline like everyone else.
I cringe when I hear “orthodoxy” and “traditionalist” today– they are truly words used to harm LGBT persons who try to reconcile their faith and sexuality, and seekers as well.
I also believe Dr. Tennent’s statements neglect inclusive church plants and new paradigm ministries in the PNW and New England, who are very much missional.
I never realized that general agencies like the General Board of Church and Society (GBCS), seminaries like Claremont, Iliff, BU, and Drew, the Amy-DeLong-pandering Connectional Table, or other major structures like the Western Jurisdiction College of Bishops were “owned” by conservative evangelical United Methodists like me. Or that we were somehow responsible for what they do. Thanks for setting me straight. 🙂
Where has actual growth by numbers been found? Where has actual growth in giving at the local level and to missions grown? If no real actual growth can be broadly noted, where then has loss been the least in these areas. If left-wing liberals are growing churches and increasing money given at the local level and to missions, then they can argue that they are most effective. If conservatives are growing churches and increasing money given at the local level and to missions, then one must consider that the credibility for producing positive results goes to them. Keep the comparisons basic. It is not hard to compare actual numbers. A doctor uses numbers… weight, blood pressure, etc., to evaluate the health of a person. In a similar way numbers… attendance, growth by professions of faith/transfer, financial giving at the local level and to missions… these numbers are very reliable indicators of the health of a church and by extension a denomination. If the left is producing the best gains… or at least producing the least numerical/percentage losses, then do things their way. If conservatives are producing the best results… then exactly the same response is merited. Let the results speak for themselves. And, if the left is more committed to having it’s own way rather than doing what produces the best results… or if conservatives are so committed to having their own way rather than doing what produces the best results… then let them go their own way. A institutional denomination of itself is not eternal. When better models arise, it is appropriate to move on.
Well said.
We are better together.
Jeremy- As a fellow Elder in the UMC, I must admit I don’t see your argument holding up about the conservatives being the ones who “bought it and broke it into two churches.” You state on the one hand that the conservatives are the ones who have owned the UMC. You cite the language and stances of the BoD. Then on the other hand you accuse them of setting up their own tents based on organizations like Bristol House and the Mission Society. You have missed an essential and important point here. The BoD stances have remained faithful to historical Christian views because those are based on the vote of General Conference. The fact that these stay the same doesn’t mean conservatives “own” the church. It simply means that a majority of the church still holds these views, or at least their delegates do.
The reason Bristol House and The Mission Society and similar organizations have been set up is due to the leadership of the UMC, including some bishops, general boards, and others. This leadership has often gone a different direction then shown in the BoD. It is these leaders, such as the ones you mentioned at Church and Society, that have divided the church. They have not only divided it, they have pressed on the fractures and cracks they have created. The conservatives don’t “own” the UMC. They may have the sway of General Conference. General Conference does not control the individual decisions made by the Connectional Table.
The reality is our church is broken by sin. That is what breaks the church, not conservatives or liberals. So before we reduce the motivations of stereotypical groups to money and influence, let us first have faith that there are people who love Jesus on both sides of this debate and perhaps we can find a common ground to worship together.
Great post, Jeremy. It sounds as though the UMC has fallen victim to the same polarizing, divisive influences that are seeking to divide our entire country so that while we are in-fighting, they can reap in the profits. There is no us and them. Every church I’ve ever been in – and I’ve been in over a dozen – had a wide spectrum of conservatism and progressivism, and not just among members, but individuals will have differing stances depending on the issue. I think we need to take a stand and refuse to buy into the us and them – and find and focus on what we have in common. I truly believe it is much bigger, stronger, and more important that the things that seem to divide us.
Pieces like this, from the good folks at Partisan Hacking Christianity serve, if no other purpose, to reveal just how profoundly different are the worlds we live in. I just don’t know. Perhaps it is time we find the least destructive path to division?
Spare me. I don’t care where you are on the theological spectrum the bureaucracy owns all of us and stifles creativity. Whether it’s a left leaning Global Ministries/women’s Division or a center-right Nashville “discipleship” group, all stifle creativity.
I think a big part of what Tennant attacks is one half of the problem. Right now we’re so busy defining ourselves in binary categories we can’t see the true enemy
And the HX agenda is…
I’m still very puzzled as to why the pro-inclusion crowd is it standing up for justice for polygamists.
I would like to put forward that the decline of the UMC is not the result of polarized opinions, but institutional inertia. Many are no longer concerned with Methodism as a Movement but keeping it as an Institution. A movement is more fluid and adaptable to missional concerns in the culture. An institution tends to stagnate and exits to perpetuate itself.
Looking at the institutional, renewal, and advocacy groups, I’d have to agree with that, Charlie.
While, I have a hard time describing my theology in the current terms that get bantered about (I don’t think I am a progressive, a conservative, nor a traditionalist), I also don’t think that any fair analysis of the powers of the UMC can be said to be this conservative/evangelical group as you say. All UMC seminaries (long before the UMC came into existence in 1968), had long accepted ‘higher criticism’ of the Bible, and had completely rejected Theology as the Queen of the Sciences. In fact, it seems that by the 1960’s almost all persons in leadership in the UMC were thoroughly modernists, and believed that where Scripture and Science seemed to disagree, Science must rule, because Science knows more than the God who created all things (tongue in cheek there a bit). So, by 1968, what existed was a denomination that was practically modernists/liberal, rather than Christian. The authourity of Scripture had been abandoned and the major theological task in our UMC seminaries today is not to understand Scriptures, but rather to debunk them.
I grew up in a large congregation in a suburb in Texas. Not the most liberal of places, but I can tell you that the Biblical Gospel had been largely abandoned or neglected, and not just by liberals. Conservatives of the modernist stripe are often as dismissive of the Gospel as liberals.
But look where the power of the denomination is. I wouldn’t say it was in the far away halls of General Conference, or even in General Boards. The power of the denomination was and is in large part in pastors. And for nearly 100 years, our seminaries were nearly derelict in instilling the Gospel in our pastors.
Jeremy you had a great post a few back about the fact that human sexuality was not what was the crux of our disagreements in the UMC. I agree with you. But I find your analysis here lacking. I don’t think that the conservative/evangelical folks have been in control of our denomination. I agree with you and Jim Johnson and Charlie. We moved to managing an institution because the gospel was no long central. I would suggest it happened closer to 1900 than to 1968 though. I would point you to some of the work done by Dr. Laceye Warner at Duke Divinity. She has done work in the area of the Methodist movement becoming ‘respectable’ and changing dramatically around 1900.
It’s essential to concentrate on the dangers and be keen to just accept them with a
purpose to put money into the futures and choices markets.
Jeremy, if you could block link-bearing replies to older posts, you might get a lot fewer stray dogs crapping on your kitchen floor.