Only 53% of United Methodists affirm a basic doctrine of the Bible, the Wesleyan church, and church unity–but is that really a surprise?
A Three-Year Conundrum…
At the 2012 General Conference, delegates who were deciding on changes to United Methodist polity and doctrine voted to add the following:
“We stand united in declaring our faith that God’s grace is available to all—that nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus.”
Sounds great, right? It’s basically a quote of Romans 8, it’s a direct reference to John Wesley’s doctrine of prevenient grace, and an aspirational addition to the preamble of the most divisive section of United Methodist doctrine: the Social Principles.
But the problem is the actual vote: it only passed by 53%. Only 53% of the delegates to General Conference, the representative leadership of millions of Methodists, affirmed that statement. I was at this General Conference and I vividly remember the collective gasp over such a low number affirming such a mainstay value of Methodism.
But let’s not get into conspiracy theories…maybe it was just an aberration to the otherwise sensible people called Methodists.
…Now Rises Again
But now the 53% sentiment is back in the news.
United Methodist Communications recently sponsored a survey of United Methodist pastors, leaders, and lay membership (see Heather Hahn’s coverage here). Folks responded to multiple questions that were unfortunately not well-worded. I know because I was one of those polled, and several of my Facebook friends (some of conservative outlooks) reflected similar confusions.
Nonetheless, the poll results are out, and they include this section:
Okay, so shifts in the numbers of folks opposed to marriage equality and LGBT inclusion are within the margin of error–no statistically significant surprises here.
But the last question is telling: Only 53% of United Methodist lay members who responded strongly agreed with this statement:
We affirm God’s grace is available to all and we seek to live together in Christian community.
It gets worse. The small print says that in 2014, 91% agreed with that statement…so by 2015, it had dropped precipitously by 38 percentage points. 38!
What is going on here? Why is such a basic belief of Christians in general, and United Methodists in particular, going out of style like 30-year-olds wearing bow ties?
The Halo Effect
It is important to understand the context from whence these 53% votes came from:
- The 2012 General Conference speeches made it clear that some delegates made the “God’s grace” statement into a debate over LGBT inclusion.
- The 2015 survey conducted by UMComm was mostly related to attitudes regarding LGBT persons after the Supreme Court granted marriage equality to the American people.
I think we are witnessing a halo effect of the debate over LGBT inclusion in the United Methodist Church. A reverse-halo effect can be seen as a negative judgment given to something because of what it is related to. If people are one political viewpoint or another, hearing something reported on MSNBC or Fox News will have a halo effect on whether it is credible or not.
So given those two contexts, when people hear that statement about God’s grace available to all, they receive it in the context of their own judgements about LGBT persons. When judgment is on your mind:
- It is hard to see “grace” as love instead of permissiveness.
- It is hard to see “available to all” as universal instead of conditional.
- It is hard to see “nothing can separate us” as grace instead of a lack of tribal judgment.
Little wonder the numbers are so low. When yes-or-no judgment and “sticking up for my tribe” rules the moment, the awareness of and advocacy for God’s grace goes out the window. What would be overwhelmingly affirmed in most situations is barely passed, and that’s a shame.
We Are Better Than This
United Methodists are supposed to be a people of grace. When lower classes were excluded from religious participation, John Wesley brought the Gospel to the fields and the coal mines. When Methodism became a thing, the ever-expanding pool of God’s love washed over previously marginalized groups and buoyed them towards the center. Women, ethnic minorities, and even laity were moved from the margins to seats at the table, still unequal in many ways, but better than before.
And yet I can’t help but wonder if in the middle of those acrimonious debates over women’s ordination and the Central Jurisdiction if such a sentiment as “God’s grace is available to all” wouldn’t also have barely passed by 53%.
We know that God’s grace is available to all. We know that God loves each person, and we simultaneously know that church and society are often structured against particular people groups. By working together to remove those barriers, we allow the river of God’s grace to flow. United Methodists are committed to “available for all” for people groups who have withstood the test of time and whose exclusion lies in the rear-view. It’s much harder to affirm this basic belief when judgements about LGBT persons are front and center in segments of our societies.
Like exclusions to women and African-Americans, my hope is that LGBT inclusion is soon in the rear-view as we welcome all persons to live out their call to serve God in the United Methodist Church, and to love one another in ways that reflect God’s love for humanity.
Grace Available to All*
Our very ground of being in the UMC–grace upon grace, love for all–is at risk. This should be disturbing even to Traditionalists! The longer we hold tightly to these exclusions that will not stand the test of time, who knows what Wesleyan core values will slip through our fingers.
And we know these exclusions will not stand the test of time because of John Wesley’s last words.
“Best of all is, God is with us.” When John Wesley said these, his final words, I don’t recall there being an asterisk next to “us.*” And yet when Wesley said “us,” women, African-Americans (heck, Africans in general), and laity were not equal in his Church. They were not “us” equally. Grace expands beyond the founder’s beliefs and beyond the past ages…when it is in concert with the Holy Spirit.
My hope is that that just as God’s grace was made available to all* when the asterisks excluded people, that United Methodists lead the Church Universal to a time and place when “all means all,” no asterisks needed.
Thoughts?
“We affirm God’s grace is available to all and we seek to live together in Christian community”
It is poorly worded. Separate the two and see what you get.
We affirm God’s grace is available to all.
We seek to live together in Christian community.
You might get universal agreement on the first and something way less on the second. By putting the two together your responders might feel conflicted and can only half agree.
Common survey method error: asking two questions and allowing only one answer.
Jeremy,
I think your statement regarding “sticking up for my tribe” sums up much that is dividing us currently within the UMC. I too, a respondent (and critic of the poorly-worded statements within) of the survey have had questions regarding the 53% because it is indicative of something much deeper (and I think the halo effect is but one piece of the systemic issue). My concern is that in our efforts to be “right” (both sides), we fail to recognize the impact of how we present ourselves over the information we hope to communicate. When our aim is to “stick up for our tribe” our content is drizzled with overpowering nuances of “us vs. them”. Thanks for giving me something to chew on!
The small print says, “the percent who strongly agreed dropped from 77 to 53 percent.” This is a 24 point drop. The 91% in 2014 was the total of those who either Agreed or Strongly Agreed. That number dropped 10 points to 81 percent in 2015.
The problem is the graphic only shows Strongly Agree while the small print talks about different group sets.
I don’t think the survey included African United Methodists. Leaving out 35-40% does not give a statistically valid sample.
In Christ,
The enemy hates clarity
Faulty wording in a survey instrument can render the results totally meaningless. Jeremy, can you give us an example or two of the deficiencies of the survey, or point us to a discussion or blog post about the problems with the survey? (although I think you would have already done that if it were still publicly available online)
Could the drop be at least partially attributable to a growing understanding that we are NOT all in agreement as to what constitutes universally available grace and/or Christian community? Or even a recognition that we are failing miserably at what we do agree on? While I would like to be able to say that United Methodists understand that grace is available to all and that we seek to live in Christian community, I don’t think I could say we are actually DOING that. Because I would have to chose between my church and my child if I had a child who was LGBTQ. Because the old biddies club at my church makes loud, judgmental comments about my friend’s thrift store clothing (she buys what fits and is cheap. She can’t afford to worry about how much it covers). Because the traditional guard makes grumpy sounds every time the foster parents in our congregation get a new crop of children who don’t know “how to behave in church” (because they’ve never been there and/or are dealing with traumatic familial issues). Because the pastor our church just passed on to some other congregation preached that NO ONE could receive God’s grace if they didn’t recognize that it came from the actual historical person known as Jesus (as if the WORD can’t possibly reveal itself any other way.
Can I say I believe that grace is available to all? Yes.
Can I say that the denomination’s current language and laws reflects this belief? No.
Can I say that a very real and active contingent within my congregation and other congregations is seeking to live in Christian community? Yes.
Can I say that my congregation as a whole is focusing on living in Christian community? Can I say that the denomination as a whole is even having serious discussions about what living in Christian community means, particularly from social and economic standpoints? No. No.
So I think I probably would have been in that 47% that said no.
Except I wouldn’t have been polled at all, because they only polled those who are sufficiently gung-ho about their religious life, whose skills and possibly gifts lie in administration, and also, are generally, financially secure enough to be able to participate in General Conference. So the fact that this isn’t exactly a representative survey of the laity is probably also an issue. Many of us are so busy doing DIRECT ministries like taking a single mom’s kids shopping for school supplies, collecting and distributing items for ministry, and running Bible study programs for all ages that we don’t have time or money left over to fly somewhere and spend days butting heads with bigots and clueless rich folks.
I wholeheartedly agree with your suppositions Matie. Excellent review… > K
Jeremy, is this a sign of decline or a symptom of demographic pool? If the previous study showed a vast difference, then the best practice would be to assume that another survey would be necessary to verify. Arriving at a conclusion from two data points isn’t how statistics work.
That being said, if the previous vote of 53% and the survey produced a result of 53%, then maybe we should question what is being taught at the local church level. I brought this subject up in a comment on March 27 in response to “Church Flipping: Who really bought, broke, and wants to sell the #UMC?” I argued that traditional Wesleyan beliefs were not being claimed in local congregations.
What if this is more of a lack of understanding? What if the local lay person (who spends most of their time attending worship, occasionally Bible study, and the lay led, non-UM curriculum Sunday School) is represented in these numbers more than those who grasp traditional Wesleyan beliefs? I would be interested in knowing how they differentiated “Leader” and “Members”.
But I would also ask, because you have written on this, how is this a result of the “buffet” you describe in “What is wrong with a theological buffet?” If churches are allowed to bring in various theological viewpoints AND the accountability to tradition or orthodoxy is relaxed to allow for that, then we get the result that people don’t hold to those beliefs that were set forth 250 years ago.
Wesleyan grace is big and complex. It has been distilled into an easier to teach 3-fold movement. But even that 3-fold movement can be twisted and tweaked in a local context to emphasize/de-emphasize individual experiences of grace above the others. In more Baptist influenced areas, justification gets undue focus. In Progressive influenced areas, prevenient grace is focused upon more. In charismatic/Pentecostal areas, sanctification is raised out of the three. And then each one gets its own spin to reach that cultural context.
I will AGREE with you completely that 53% of United Methodists is a tragic number. The understanding of grace that we represent is a beautiful and truly amazing gift of God provided to all people. And I believe that our approach to grace is the most relevant to contemporary culture (I claim my bias). And a community open to everyone is the representation of the kingdom of God. So I will join with you in hoping/praying/working to increase that number.
I wonder if the decline in those numbers has anything to do with an increase of membership from outside the UMC. I am a member of a church that has many members who have been drawn by the friendliness of the church, but who have come from other denominations or are even new to any church. I’m sure that this is going on in many churches too, and many of these people though they like the church don’t really know the theology of the church. Possibly some of these people just don’t understand the concept of grace.
When I look at the survey results and evaluate them at face value without the narrative, I see derive one conclusion which reflects my experience in the UMC: Pastors and leaders strongly believe grace is available to they seek to live in Christian unity, but they are preaching and they are not leading their congregations down that path. My thought is that there are too many exceptions and too many potential consequences. We need more fearless leaders and pastors, like Adam Hamilton, who are strong in their convictions will bravely preach and lead.
WITH CORRECTIONS: When I look at the survey results and evaluate them at face value without the narrative, I derive one conclusion which reflects my experience in the UMC: Pastors and leaders strongly believe grace is available to all and they seek to live in Christian unity, but they are not preaching it and they are not leading their congregations down that path. My thought is that there are too many exceptions and too many potential consequences for that radical message. We need more fearless leaders and pastors, like Adam Hamilton, who are strong in their convictions and will bravely preach and lead.
Unfortunately Jim leadership is not measuring their pastors these days in their ability to lead the way.. There effectiveness (and maybe their appointment) is often linked to the pastors ability to meet apportionment objectives, preventing decline in the pews, and maintaining fiscal health.. Transformational leadership means change and change is too uncomfortable for too many. Sadly, many come to church ‘to be fed’ spiritually…. not to do the hard work necessary to truly be disciples who can transform the world by transforming themselves first.. > Rev K
The reasoning behind the blog is twisted logic at best and left wing extremism at it’s worst. You can’t support LGBT without defending NAMBLA rights. The open alcoholism in the UMC has already done damage that will never reversed. What next? Open acceptance for pedophiles? God loves them the same as you and I, but like alcoholism it does not belong in any family especially a church family.
…Wow.
Well, thanks for stopping by, Bill.
How does it feel trying to live on that slippery slope, Bill? Must be pretty scary.
It’s all right Bill. I read the rude comments that were posted after your comment. I’m afraid we are losing our United Methodist Church to the world. God does love every one and wants them to repent and follow his teachings.Will God forgive at the final judgment? I don’t know. We all have to think about that for ourselves. And contrary to an earlier comment before yours, the Bible states the only way to Heaven is thru Jesus. These people no longer believe the Bible, maybe they never did and are infiltrating the church to lead it astray. It’s not the many groups of people who come to church to worship. It’s the ones who would pervert God’s word and turn the church into a circus act to promote their own agenda. We need to be looking for a Bible believing denomination because it is no longer with the Methodists. It’s been a year since your comment and I can already see the changes within the Methodist church. Satan has prevailed. And I don’t think the Methodist hierachy will stop him.
“Like exclusions to women and African-Americans, my hope is that LGBT inclusion is soon in the rear-view as we welcome all persons to live out their call to serve God in the United Methodist Church, and to love one another in ways that reflect God’s love for humanity.”
It would seem that in 2015, even though women and people of color have full inclusion within the church, in the practical application of full inclusion, such as appointing pastors to local churches, we are still lacking. Many congregations still insist they do not want a person of color or a female as their pastor. Some can be very abusive when they do not get their own way in this instance. So, especially within local settings what seems good in theory becomes problematic when “walking the walk.” I experience this first hand every time I am reappointed.
So, to think we are “fully” inclusive in these areas Church wide when we really are not, adds to our surprise when the numbers add up to the reality of theory versus walking it out.
Oops! So, to think we are “fully” inclusive in these areas Church wide when we really are not, adds to our surprise when the numbers add up to the reality of theory versus walking it out in the case of our LGBT sisters and brothers.
The poll reflects the slow but infiltration of the UMC by the Communist Party. Think I’m wrong? Google the Methodist Federation for Social Action. Then look up Antonio Gramsci, then search communist influence in the UMC. You’ll see for yourselves. The current push to ordain gays isn’t about gays. It’s about spitting and taking down the Church.