Bishop Timothy Whittaker of the Florida Area has a commentary here on the reality of general church decline and the challenge and opportunity it poses to the future of the United Methodist Church. I agree with much of what Bishop Whittaker says, at least as far as the causes - both demographic and (for lack of a better word) ideological - that underly our current malaise. I think a third factor, tied in to a growing cultural assimilation of the UMC during the first half of the 20th century, was a general decline in the teaching office of the church. Relying on voluntary Sunday School staff, with curriculum based upon the idea that (a) the laity don't need to know about Biblical scholarship or theological debates; and (b) the laity aren't interested in deep theological discussions, the entire structure of what we teach and how we teach it needs to be addressed. We need a new pedagogy - one rooted in our Wesleyan heritage, but, like Wesley himself, keeping our feet firmly planted in the whole history of the Church as a way of grounding ourselves for the future.
Bishop Whittaker notes the growth of churches in Florida (why can't a Bishop be provincially proud?). He should also look north, as some churches here in the old Northwest are growing quite well. Poplar Grove UMC is in the midst of massive growth, as is our little town (quickly becoming another bedroom community/suburb). Two other churches in town have folded, one has started (albeit without a building of its own), but we just keep getting larger. We have already outgrown the building just completed seven years ago, and are looking forward to new physical growth to accommodate our membership expansion. I think that we are growing partly because, as Bishop Whittaker points out, we have a definite clear idea of our identity even in the midst of change, not least of these being a dedication of mission work, both here in Boone County, as well as in the larger world.
There is a note I would like to make concerning the whole issue of decline, etc. While the decline in membership has many factors, and the scramble for solutions among the hierarchy at times resembles a Keystone Kops short, there is a larger question that needs to be considered. I have thought about this a great deal contemplating the shuttering of my home church, First UMC, Sayre, PA. One of the great spiritual gifts John Wesley bequeathed to the universal church was the idea we call connectionalism, but he merely referred to as a covenant. Based upon Old Testament ideas of mutuality, and an imbalance in that mutuality, John Wesley saw us, yoked in our discipleship, as being in a covenant relationship first with God, then with each other. Each New Years Eve, at Watch Night Services, Wesley recited what has come down to us as "The Covenant Prayer", which is included in our hymnal as a liturgical resource. One of the lines of that prayer is "Let me be put aside for thee." This line is the hardest to recite, because human beings, once ensconced in a role, too often refuse to surrender that role, and all the perquisites and perks that come with it. And not just individuals; institutions, even more than people, are almost impossible to get rid of, continually finding new rationales for their existence long after their original mission has gone the way of the dodo. I do believe that the Council of Bishops, the General Conference, and individual congregations need to ask themselves serious questions as they reflect upon that line of Wesley's Covenant Prayer.
One thing we must remember is that the mission of the Church has gone through all sorts of stages. It may be that the role the UMC was to play, as assigned by God through the Holy Spirit that gave us birth, has run its course, and it is time to surrender the stage for something new. Or, it may be we have simply wandered off the path - just what that path may be is, of course a bone of contention - and need to find our way back. Whatever the answer to this perplexing problem, we need to remember that, while sad, the end of the UMC would certainly be worth mourning, as a unique voice of a part of the message of the Gospel would have been lost. The ministry of the universal church, however, would not wither should the UMC fold, however. We are not the Church, just a church, a small part of the Body of Christ.
I honestly do not believe the UMC is going anywhere anytime soon. There are many exciting developments and growth in some areas offers new opportunities for new ideas and ways of being the Church. By all means, we need to re-engage our Wesleyan heritage, as well as argue with it. We need to be a voice in the wilderness of our culture and society, as well, remembering well that in the Gospel of St. Luke, what he called the "good news" of John the Baptist begins with calling "this present generation" a "brood of vipers". Of course, John the Baptist ended up with his head on Herod's platter, but that only confirmed his point.
I digress . . .
Rather than wishing and hoping we were the biggest kid on the block, part of facing the realities of decline is turning it in to a positive, by emphasizing our distance from our much-too-acculturated mid-20th century closeness to middle class ethics, politics, and culture. Our voice should be the Word of God, not a reassuring word for the comfortably well off. That, too, is part of Wesley's heritage. Regaining our prophetic edge in the midst of pastoral ministry is part of what it means to be Wesleyan.
My hope for the future is that the UMC take the vibrant, sometimes quite lively, debates that are too often restricted to seminary classrooms, annual conference sessions, and after-church coffee hours, and put them all together in one huge discussion. We are all part of the problem, and we are also part of the potential solution, if we have the will and the imagination, to risk moving forward in fear and hope as the people of God.
Virtual Tin Cup
