New Methodism’s Inevitable Challenge

Kevin Watson, a sharp young traditionalist United Methodist at Candler School of Theology in Atlanta, has written insightfully for First Things about the denomination’s impending schism. His previously written books stress the importance of early Methodism’s small spiritual accountability groups and their application for today. His more recent book is Old or New School Methodism?: The Fragmentation of a Theological Tradition, which traces current divisions to the mid 19th century. I hope to review this book soon.

The agonies of the United Methodist Church and their roots in Methodist history teach an important lesson. The dominant culture has little need for nominally Christian chaplains. Let the dead bury the dead, as Jesus teaches. We need an approach to cultural engagement and sexual ethics that is anchored by Methodism’s founding mission to “spread scriptural holiness,” rather than one that drifts along with and is determined by the prevailing cultural moment.

Watson recalls that early Methodism grew because it stressed personal holiness not social accommodation and political influence. By mid 19th century Methodism was so large that it had great societal impact often wielded for righteous causes, with Prohibition at the apex. But in this project to make America holy, Watson argues, Methodism was emasculated by becoming more culturally mainstream American.

The church itself became chameleonic, shifting hues based on contemporary preference. Even when fighting for social reforms, like anti-slavery, Watson asserts, mainstream Methodism was often late or reluctant in the game. Greater theological integrity and greater commitment to justice causes were often found with smaller denominations that broke from the main Methodist body, like the Wesleyan Church, which emerged in the 1840s. The same was true earlier for the Free Methodist Church, and much later for the holiness churches like the Nazarenes.

This history is instructive. But it’s important to recall that these breakaway Wesleyan denominations remained small compared to mainstream Methodism that eventually became The United Methodist Church. They retained conservative theology and distinctive evangelical subcultures. United Methodism, previously called The Methodist Church, was in contrast a great national denomination with millions of people. It was America’s largest Protestant communion until the 1960s when overtaken by the Southern Baptists. With greater size comes greater responsibilities.

It’s not unreasonable that mainstream Methodism, once paramount in USA Christianity, felt obliged to exert wider social leadership. John Wesley of course had himself always remained with Britain’s state church and from that vantage point fervently assumed a spiritually custodial stance towards the nation. His Methodist societies within the Church of England were Christian subcultures of spiritual renewal within church and society. But Wesley did not equate these societies with the church itself. The American Revolution forced him reluctantly to bless America’s Methodists as a distinct new denomination.

Unsurprisingly, the DNA of Wesley’s beloved Church of England, including this attitude of national stewardship, transferred into American Methodism, especially after its dramatic early decades of growth made it America’s biggest religious movement, not surpassed by Catholicism until later in the 19th century. A church that large cannot and should not evade the inevitable mantle of leadership and opportunity for societal influence. For 2000 years Christianity’s various branches, when they grew to prominence, assumed wider societal duties as they sought to incarnate Gospel teachings in various cultures.

Large church bodies with social leadership responsibilities of course inevitably face pressures to become respectable, to downplay their theological and ethical distinctives, to compromise. With size, influence, money and power come spiritual inertia and corruption. It’s the inevitable cycle of Christian and wider human life. Wesley in his own lifetime observed that Methodists as they gained respect and prosperity became more indifferent to the spiritual disciplines that brought them success. He himself, once viewed as subversive, became respectable and venerated, though he did not compromise his teachings. British culture, under redemptive revivalist influence, came to honor his mission.

Wesley constantly challenged inertia in the Methodist societies, often by expelling lax members. But he had no expectation of exerting such discipline throughout the Church of England. Wesley ultimately had to entrust this wider cosmic drama to Providence. The results were uneven, but Wesley’s disciplined exertions, always grounded in sound doctrine and ethics, overall renewed church and culture, with earthly and eternal consequences.

Wesley’s doctrinal and ethical discipline, with a wider universal spirit, must be an exemplar for the new global Methodism that will emerge from the coming schism. This new denomination won’t be a renewal society nor will it be a small sect. It will include millions of people in America and many more overseas. It will be numerically smaller than the old United Methodist Church but still among America’s largest religious bodies. It will rightly inherit Methodism’s historic expectation to care for and influence wider society. It should seek to be countercultural as every church should seek to resist worldly temptation.

But new global Methodism can’t and won’t be a subculture walled against the world. It will seek to reshape American culture, and other cultures globally, towards Gospel principles. Worldly culture and superficial respectability will inevitably seek to infiltrate the church. Resistance is an ongoing battle for every church in every place and time. The battle never goes away in this age. But we trust ultimately God will protect His church

As Watson rightly warns, we must heed yesterday’s lessons. How was once great Methodism in America brought low by spiritual, cultural and moral compromise? Its century or more of theological retreat must never be forgotten. But the lessons are not all negative. What became United Methodism was in many ways a mighty force for Gospel influence, where genuinely godly leaders often sought to remain faithful to doctrine and to be responsible stewards of American culture, to the extent they were able. Millions were blessed by their exertions, despite their mistakes.

In the new global Methodism we will need established leaders to exert wider societal and cultural influence in America and other nations. And we will need prophetic voices to challenge their human temptation to prevaricate in pursuit of worldly acclaim. The church cannot be fully itself without both this public witness and simultaneous internal challenge to it.

Much of the story is also the case with the Southern Baptist Church, which is quickly apostatizing.Much of the story is also the case with the Southern Baptist Church, which is quickly apostatizing.

You need to change your mind as to what the title of this group is. There is no regional, national or global Southern Baptist Church as an entity, or as a denomination.

The Southern Baptist Convention is an Association of like-minded but autonomous individual local churches whose leadership arranges to share resources according to the well-recognized economy of scale. In this dimension, they confer to establish agreements consistent with mutually shared doctrine and evangelistic efforts.

This Baptist style of organization shuns any kind of episcopacy, and thus is not at all to be called a "Church" except as it applies solely to a local independent autonomous self-governed gathering of members under New Testament principles and polity.

To understand what the term "Baptist" (as a proper noun) is, one should examine the acronym featuring the essential distinctives that define a local Baptist (immersionist) assembly:

==========================

Baptist "Distinctives"

in a nutshell:

o Biblical Authority (Sola Scriptura)
The Bible is the final authority in all matters of belief and practice because the Bible is inspired by God and bears the absolute authority of God Himself. Whatever the Bible affirms, Baptists accept as true. No human opinion or decree of any church group can override the Bible. Even creeds and confessions of faith, which attempt to articulate the theology of Scripture, do not carry Scripture's inherent authority.
o Autonomy of the Local Church
The local church is an independent body accountable to the Lord Jesus Christ, the head of the church. All human authority for governing the local church resides within the local church itself. Thus the church is autonomous, or self-governing. No religious hierarchy outside the local church may dictate a church's beliefs or practices. Autonomy does not mean isolation. A Baptist church may fellowship with other churches around mutual interests and in an associational tie, but a Baptist church cannot be a "member" of any other body.
o Priesthood of the Believer
"Priest" is defined as "one authorized to perform the sacred rites of a religion, especially as a mediatory agent between humans and God." Every believer today is a priest of God and may enter into His presence in prayer directly through our Great High Priest, Jesus Christ. No other mediator is needed between God and people. As priests, we can study God's Word, pray for others and offer spiritual worship to God. We all have equal access to God - whether we are a preacher or not.
o Two Ordinances
The local church should practice two ordinances: (1) baptism of believers by immersion in water, identifying the individual with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection, and (2) the Lord's Supper, or communion, commemorating His death for our sins.
o Individual Soul Liberty
Every individual, whether a believer or an unbeliever, has the liberty to choose what he believes is right in the religious realm. No one should be forced to assent to any belief against his will. Baptists have always opposed religious persecution. However, this liberty does not exempt one from responsibility to the Word of God or from accountability to God Himself.
o Saved, Baptized Church Membership
Local church membership is restricted to individuals who give a believable testimony of personal faith in Christ and have publicly identified themselves with Him in believer's baptism. When the members of a local church are believers, a oneness in Christ exists, and the members can endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
o Two Offices
The Bible mandates only two offices in the church - pastor and deacon. The three terms - "pastor, " "elder" and "bishop," or "overseer" - all refer to the same office. The two offices of pastor and deacon exist within the local church, not as a hierarchy outside or over the local church.
o Separation of Church and State
God established both the church and the civil government, and He gave each its own distinct sphere of operation. The government's purposes are outlined in Romans 13:1-7 and the church's purposes in Matthew 28:19 and 20. Neither should control the other, nor should there be an alliance between the two. Christians in a free society can properly influence government toward righteousness, which is not the same as a denomination or group of churches controlling the government.
Matthew 22:15-22; Acts 15:17-29

==========================

Perusal of this will show you that anything like denominationalism is antithetic to giving a supra-church organization dominion over any of the local churches constituting such an assembly organized according to this New Testament polity.

To be considered the same as Catholic or Lutheran or Methodist or even Presbyterian is anathema to a Baptist assembly of professed believers. Baptists of any kind do not have or recognize any supra-church bishopric, archbishops, monsigneurs, cardinals, or (God forbid!) Popes as intermediaries between the individual believer and The Mighty God Himself, or His Son the Savior and Lord Jesus Messiah.

May this inform you as to how discussing the Southern Baptist Conference of associated churches should be understood and guided.

May the LORD review and chasten the reprobates claiming to follow the Wesleyan Methodism heritage as a New Testament form of the visible Kingdom of the Heavens.

No, the accountability is not to fellow brethren (who may or may not be the senior ordained elder of a local church); It is for the local church to be aligned with the statement of faith and rules of association to which they have subscribed and endorsed. If they are not ethical enough to declare that the local chuch is no longer observing following, then it has forfeited its pledge to sustain those standards, and thus either declare it and leave the fellowship, or by mutual agreement from theur initial status no longer qualify. The "disfellowship" is not a punishment or method of intimidation and manipulation by the leaders. It is just following through with the automatic DISQUALIFICATION (not to be taken as "dis-fellowship" or excommunication) according to the initial agreement they had joined with other churches in establishing and accepting the group's boundaries.

There are plenty of other such divisions of Baptists, none of which constitutes a denomination. The local church can pull out any time it wants, without having to give a reason, and have done so. It is a two-way street, like any other club. Unlike episcopacies, I doubt that the Conference makes its major decisions by fiat, by a dictatorial prerogative. The Southern Baptist Conference is NOT a denomination, neither are Baptists in general to be called "Protestants" because they are not split-offs from one or another of the Catholic- or Orthodoxen-derived episcopacies that _are_ denominations. When the people as the whole congregation of a Methodist church, or a Lutheran church, or a Catholic church, or a Greek Orthodox, or an Episcopal or Anglican church.. It's like a neutron bomb goimg off--the people go, the building and everything in it or owned by it, stays.

Not so by a Baptist church. If they leave the SBC, the GARB, etc, (and there are a bunch of them) then generally an independent autonomous congregation-funded church and its employees paid by them, the whole shebang leaves the conference/association with them. The conference does not likely own the property nor pay the pastor. The pastor's financial obligation and allegiance is to the congregation, not the association.If it does, then the church is not really "Baptist" at all.

What Is A Baptist?

There are three basic distinctions of Baptists:

1. Baptists only baptize those who have trusted Christ as their personal Savior. Baptism does not have any "saving power" but it simply and publicly identifies one as a "Believer."

2. Baptists believe that churches should be autonomous ("self-governing"). History has shown that it is better for a chuch and its leadership to be accountable to the local group of parishioners.

3. Baptists believe that Jesus Christ is the only Savior for mankind - as the Bible says. The message of Christ in the Scripture is more important than any religious system or dogma.

That's even more general basi platform from which, since Pentecost, the New Testament Baptist believer does not venture, Please notice the remark on the nature of relationship of the local assembly to any other regularly meeting of believers incorporated as the temporal gathering of the Body of Christ.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.