9.5 Theses on why we must blog about United Methodism lest we let our beloved church fall into stilted irrelevance.
The following are 9.5 Theses (sorry Martin Luther) asserting why this blog writes about United Methodism in such a forceful way.
I. What was right in Methodism?
1. There exists a valid and coherent progressive perspective within Christianity, including a spectrum of social and theological affirmations.
2. Progressive and traditionalist beliefs have coexisted in the United Methodist Church in both polity and practice.
3. Over time, the Methodist Church normalizes some previously-deemed-progressive beliefs, leading to better polity and practice.
II. What went wrong?
4. However, since the 1980s, the progressive perspective has been disempowered at all levels of the Church, rendering it a lower “tier” than the dominant traditionalist perspective.
5. Due to key votes at General Conference, the UMC has become a two-tiered reality, with the progressives’ ability to effect change in the church severely diminished.
6. This two-tiered reality has lessened the United Methodist Church’s ability to absorb and normalize progressives ideals, hampering its Wesleyan spirit and prophetic witness.
III. What can we do?
7. However, through a network of diverse voices bypassing the gatekeepers and exposing everyday Methodists to this two-tiered reality, we can reduce the dominant perspectives’ ability to make this unjust tier system permanent.
8. Blogging and social media advocacy are powerful methods to subvert the spectacle of outrage in order to educate and elicit collective action at all levels of United Methodism.
9. The repercussions to such efforts will be increasingly harsh due to the Internet’s echo chambers amplifying reactionary voices, and the entrenched power and resources of the dominant perspective to oppose such efforts.
IV. My Commitment
9.5. Therefore, my baptismal vow was to be loyal to the United Methodist Church and do all in my power to strengthen its ministries. Dismantling this tiered system and restoring a proper balance of perspectives is one way I can live into this vow.
Okay this was actually 10, as the last is the biggest commitment…but 9.5 sounded so much cooler.
===
Postscript
People ask why I blog about United Methodist issues.
People ask why I endure being called a “conspiracy theorist,” “lacking intellectual virtue,” and an “a**hole” by fellow United Methodist clergy and laity (see #9).
Here’s why: I love my church and I’ve seen what happened to other denominations when their careful balance of perspectives was upended, such as when the Southern Baptist takeover eradicated moderates from the ranks.
United Methodists had a powerful balance of traditionalist values and progressive affirmations, glued together with an evangelical zeal and a missional focus. We can have it again–but balance must be brought back to the UMC before it’s too late.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and I believe writing about the state of the church will bring change to the church. I believe a holistic Methodist Church is the best hope for Christianity in the post-Christian future–and we can get there together.
Thoughts?
Jeremy,
Great post (and a nice touch with Martin Luther). Question – what’s the best way to link this to my blog so that others can see it?
Thanks!
In peace,
Tony
Hi Tony! Thanks for your kind words. Use whatever link or quote you want. Here’s the shortlink:
https://www.hackingchristianity.net/?p=7961
Blessings, ~Jeremy
Hi, Jeremy!
Thank you for this post. I have seen this divergence for a long time coming. As a conference kid, I was first made aware of this problem in the late 90’s and now I in my 30’s it saddens me to know that the church that I love is headed in this direction. I agree that we should do something about it. But what? What are your thoughts on how we should proceed?
Blessings, Peace and, Serenity,
Beth
You had me at “baptismal covenant.”
As a fellow Progressive in the UMC, I have been asked a number of times why I stay and why I work for things like Marriage Equality (and so much more). The reminder of this covenant is very powerful.
You also remind us that we’re stronger together than we are apart. Isn’t this the point of our connectional system? I believe it is, and I’m grateful for your voice. Preach on, my brother!
Just one comment… I sincerely hope your baptismal vows were to Christ alone. Perhaps you meant ordination vows, instead. Christians are part of His church first and the human organizations second. (I do not mean to diminish the human organizations;however.)
The vows are actually (now) “loyal to Christ through the United Methodist Church.” But in the 1970s it was “to the UMC.” So I think we agree but say things a bit differently.
I was still typing while you posting your reply. Question though; I have the latest hymnal from1989, and it does not have “loyal to Christ through the UMC” when was that change made?
It was made in 2008.
– https://www.hackingchristianity.net/2014/02/variety-of-membership-vows-in-the-umc.html
Thanks. I bet my pastors have all kept to the old script, as I don’t remember hearing it that way.
If you are a Methodist you should know that at confirmation or adult baptism that this is in the vows: “Will you be loyal to The United Methodist Church, and uphold it by your prayers, your presence, your gifts, and your service?”
Thank you for articulating this position so well. The theological diversity of the UMC has always been one of the gifts of our tradition. I’ve pitched my tent in this UM field so I will be staying in order to have a say in the conversation.
Thanks for reading, Shelly! A blessing to have you!
Thank you for continuing the conversation. Name calling is the lowest and inarticulate form discourse. Ignore it.
Breathe peace
Can you give me a working definition of “progressive” in the context of United Methodism?
Why do you feel Watson’s tweets were directed at you? The other links I understand, but not that one.
Kevin Watson’s were the same day of my big blog posts and David Watson’s reactions. But that’s correlation–you’ll have to ask him to be sure.
If it makes you feel any better, I don’t think Dr. Kevin Watson’s tweet was personally about you. I think it was just about the mounting tension and dialogue. I know I lack virtue everyday . . . and pray for God’s grace to lead me to a better place of action and dialogue (and less sin in both)!
As I read this blog the lectionary readings for this week ran into my mind. James and Mark both of which speak to the use of ones tongue can be applied to those who become (shall I say) vulgar towards you for exposing the truth about the suppression of the progressive voice. What I read was by no means offensive, truthful but not offensive. If we can’t be civil to one another, no one will want any part of the UMC.
It’s funny/interesting, Jeremy, that evangelicals would say the same thing in reverse to your points 4 & 5. We would reword them this way:
4. However, since the 1960s, the evangelical perspective has been disempowered at higher levels of the Church, rendering it a lower “tier” than the dominant progressive perspective.
5. Due to persistent policies and actions by general church agencies and bishops, the UMC has become a two-tiered reality, with the traditionalists’ ability to effect change in the church severely diminished.
It is also not true (from our perspective) that evangelicals or traditionalists have a lock on General Conference. Many items we wanted to see passed there have failed to receive approval. The one exception really is the sexuality issues. A lot of other policy areas take a much more progressive line. (Read through the Book of Resolutions, for example.)
We, too, have adopted the strategy of going around the gatekeepers and “official” organs of communication. Good News magazine has been an alternative source of news and perspective for nearly 48 years.
I don’t know what this says, other than both traditionalists and progressives feel like a minority view in the church.
Perception can be more important than reality. I do think that both Jeremy Smith in his post here, and Tom Lambrecht in this comment are saying how the see the United Methodist Church at this time. For that reason, if local Churches could freely leave the denomination, whether done through precedents from legal decisions, or General Conference action, I believe that more than a few of our Churches, whether Progressive or Tradional, would leave, and quite a few of that number, will think that because of actions of others, they are forced to take that action. Our connection is very fragile at this time.
You nailed it, Mr. Lambrecht. The progressives have the Bishops, the agencies, the Connectional Table, and the seminaries. Thank God for General Conference, even though, as you note, it is not really a conservative body.
In Christ,
The enemy hates clarity