An Evangelical Approach to Reform

A report, “Operational Assessment of the Connectional Church,” conducted by an independent group Apex Healthcare Group under the direction of the Call to Action Steering Team, has been released. The Call to Action Steering Team has been given the responsibility for making recommendations for a major redirection of The United Methodist Church. The Team will make use of the Apex study as they make recommendations to the Connectional Table for the restructuring and refocusing of The United Methodist Church.

The report identifies some major problems with the way The United Methodist Church is presently operating. This Happening article will list some of the findings of the report. Generally speaking, except for the jargon used in such a study, the findings reflect the very things evangelical groups have been concerned about for a number of years. In other words, from an evangelical perspective, if major, decisive action is taken on the recommendations of this report, the future is much brighter for United Methodist.

Among the findings (with additional comments):

1) There is a general lack of trust within the church leading to a loss of connectionalism and an under-functioning of the processes of the church. Another part of the report mentions specifically the general lack of trust within the church in leadership and in boards and agencies. The report further mentions the general lack of accountability on the part of boards and agencies as a reason for the lack of trust.

This is precisely one of the major concerns of the several evangelical renewal groups ever since the first of the renewal groups, Good News, was organized 40 years ago. This has been seen in curriculum materials developed without sensitivity to evangelical churches, in the independent ways of the superboards without regard for people in the pews, in the lack of accountability in the seminaries, and in actions of many of the bishops. The agencies often function as if local churches exist to serve the agencies and not the agencies to the church. This is not a problem easily fixed. For beginners there will need to be a new way of thinking and managing and visioning and serving. In other words the church will need to develop a new “corporate culture.” (its way of thinking and doing things). Gaining the confidence of the people will take time. But things cannot continue as they have been. For starters, the present structure of the church adopted in 1972 will need a major overhaul.

2) There is within the denomination a loss of mission definition and relevancy and an accompanying sense of loss of identity.

This too has been a major theme of the renewal groups. The stated mission statement of the church should not be difficult to understand: “…to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.” But large segments of the church do not relate to this mission statement at all. For example: the support of colleges that have no interest in “making disciples of Jesus Christ,” and which are basically secular institutions. For another example: the obsession on the part of many with “inclusivism,” which serves as an alternative and sometimes a competing “mission ” to the stated mission of the church. Sometimes groups act as if, when they have achieved the proper mix of ethnic groups, age, and gender, they have fulfilled their mission.

3) There is a loss of the Wesleyan theological focus. Another part of the report speaks of a lack of engagement and inability to find common, powerful, uniting beliefs.

This also has been a major theme of the renewal groups. There has been a downplaying, and sometimes outright dismissal of the United Methodist doctrinal standards. There has been a direct challenge to Wesleyan theology in the emphasis on inter-faith dialogue (or an outright denial of Wesleyanism in institutions like Claremont). The challenge to Wesleyanism on the one hand is Reformed theology; on the other hand it is progressive ideology. The church cannot be all things to all people.

4) There is an uncoupling of social holiness and vital piety.

The problem is not just in the uncoupling but in the fact that the church is not doing either social holiness or vital piety very well. We have lost the accountability function of the class meeting. “Social holiness” has frequently been interpreted by progressives to justify an agenda committed to liberal political views.

5) The “big tent” approach to being a church with its emphasis on inclusivity, free expression and diversity–where many different and diverse views exist together–is celebrated, but carries with it many problems, not the least of which is an increasing polarization in beliefs on key issues.

The so-called “big tent” concept of the church, in its extreme form, is incompatible with points 2) and 3)–the loss if identity and loss of theological focus. The church has diluted its doctrinal heritage in order to enlarge the tent to include all persons, even those with a questionable commitment to Jesus Christ. The present emphasis on “no standards” by those who want even to write this into the constitution of the church (amendment to para. IV of the Discipline) can only lead to further polarization. At a time when the church needs boundaries some wish to do away with all boundaries. The proposal that on matters like the practice of homosexuality, we agree to disagree, would lead us not to unity but to division.

6) The church rewards administrative/maintenance behavior instead of visionary, risk-taking leadership. Leaders should model civil and/or difficult dialogue better. Leaders are often not held accountable.

This too has been a theme of evangelical groups from their inception.

The next Happenings article will discuss further the report, “The Operational Assessment of the Connectional Church.”