If we think of denominations as institutions, it sometimes becomes difficult to “retake” them. If we think of denominations in terms of groups of people bound together by relationships and covenant (and to a certain extent, doctrinal agreement) then it’s possible to retake the soul of the denomination while leaving the institution behind. Institutions are a wineskin, not the wine. If a wineskin is breaking down, it’s okay to pour the wine into new wineskins. I’m an outsider looking in, but that’s how I view the Global Methodist Church: it’s not a breaking up of Methodism, but rather a pouring of what remains of traditional Methodism into a new wineskin.
Our little, rural church went through the discernment process with our DS as prescribed by the NE Conference. The outcome was, I think, inevitable at this point. Having been folded into a 3-point charge a couple years back, most of our parishioners are young in the faith and do not understand the issues. Besides that, we only discussed our stance on LGBTQ+ issues and not the larger malfeasance of our bishops and clergy. There was no path to separation where we would have a pastor, and that scared people. So we stayed. And my wife and I, and the other Lay Speaker stayed. Not so much for the redemption of the denomination (which I hold eminently possible as long as the Word is read and the Spirit moves), but to keep our little church alive and growing. I expect there are many such congregations in the US.
"At that church, they won’t have to deal with social media stories about the shenanigans in their denomination." Yes! throughout the centuries, there have always been non-orthodox pastors in the most orthodox of denominations. Historically, these folks were dealt with by a strong, orthodox unified central authority. the UMC's choice to establish the jurisdictions, plus the seminary council as multiple central authorities is what led to the downfall of our orthodox positions - looking back, it was inevitable that at least one of these authorities would become non-orthodox. This, combined with the increased mobility and communication of the ordinary congregational member, has led to the "recent unpleasantness". For 70 years ago, what happened in Boise, for instance, with a fallen pastor stayed in Boise or at worst in Idaho. Now, what happens in the smallest church in the smallest town has the potential to be spread worldwide by social media. And so, the real problem today with strong denominations is the damage to the "brand" spreads worldwide. If I were starting a denomination today - say, "The AAA Association of Godly Churches", I'd have a clause that says you can associate with us, you can work with us, you can use materials we develop (in essence, the denomination becomes a service provider) - but don't you dare claim publicly to belong to this denomination, because one bad pastor can damage our brand - so pick a name that doesn't include "AAA Association of Godly Churches" on the marque, for without a central, very strong authority that can kick a pastor out for the slightest deviation - every denomination is prone to fall because of a single bad pastor - and I'm not sure that we Americans are at all interested in that degree of central control over pastoral speech and theology. Looking forward to reading more of your fine essays!
Great to be reading your writing, David. I'll have to opine that if history is any guide, "Operation Reconquista", effort to "retake" institutions in the name of Christ, with the things we have that He has Personally said firmly in mind, will fade away.
The obvious original precedent is the Roman churches. The Lutheran reconquista failed altogether, though the Lord has rewarded those faithful to Him and unfaithful to the institution of this world it was intended to reconquer. And some embedded within the Roman domination were and remain unconcerned with the weird self-promotions and self-exaltations of their magisterium, not very unlike many humble of the Orthodox.
I'll suspect that the Eastern Orthodox parallel never happened simply because its humble and faithful folk never respected its traditional dominationalists much at all, because of how humble they had no choice but to be..Those dominationalists no longer have the power they had, are humbled themselves, and so we have a different pattern there, at least for now. It will be interesting to see what happens with them.
Another attempted reconquista, was the charismatic/pentacostalist effort beginning in the late 1800's, with a dramatic visibility starting in the very early 1900's. This one is still going on, though weakening over time, because of a common severe lack of concern for what we have that Christ the Lord has Personally said. Even now it is far more of a shade of grey within many churches than anything else, and in some of its own churches, the shade is barely discernable, or not at all. Again, the Lord has rewarded the faithful, in and out of churches, and the institutions of this world wobble or wither in a fashion completely independent of the large-scale effort.
I will have to opine, that the study of the Lord's pattern is the key. He will reward the faithful, and He will use the unfaithful for His purposes, one of which is to motivate some to repent and become more faithful. He shall do this in, around, and through the entire world, and to whichever extent He chooses, all of the institutions of men and women.
I sympathize with your pain, brother. I shall pray the Lord gives you release as He gives me from my own institutional origins. As we mourn, the Holy One shall comfort us.
Really great insights about how the big picture requires an acknowledgment of power and interference from the episcopacy and the bureaucracy. I'm embarrassed that I didn't think of this in my coverage of them. I wonder if you'll agree with me in what I think Project Reconquista exposes. Namely, I think they expose that conservative Christians in the mainline identify as consumers and spectators rather than warriors and participants. If we had identities of those called to do spiritual warfare, I don't think it would be hard to expect us to stay and fight. But if we have been conditioned to put ourselves first, to seek comfort, to avoid conflict, then yeah, holding on and fighting the good fight just isn't going to be an option. The GMC is an answer in a situation in which those on the side of right aren't really willing to fight for it, but they are willing to pay some money, fill out some paperwork, and leave for it. Rather than letting the UMC hemorrhage out people who would then just fall away from church entirely, at least put people in a new institution. But it is a compromised position, it is doesn't address the fundamental problem: these people identify as civilians when they are actually combatants.
I didn't talk about it in these terms, but I covered this in a segment last Friday: https://youtu.be/w3s9TA_i7kY
Hey Jeffrey. Thanks for these comments. I see the issue a little differently than you do. For me, it would have been much easier to stay in the UMC. I have done my share of fighting, but I began to sense that it was time to build. I wanted to sow into what I felt was a move of God. Many who left the mainline have done so at great cost. Some have lost pensions and housing. Many have lost friendships and suffered public ridicule. And many who have left have done so with great uncertainty about their future. Perhaps there are people who have left for the reasons you have identified. My experience of most of those who left the UMC, particularly among the clergy, is different.
If we think of denominations as institutions, it sometimes becomes difficult to “retake” them. If we think of denominations in terms of groups of people bound together by relationships and covenant (and to a certain extent, doctrinal agreement) then it’s possible to retake the soul of the denomination while leaving the institution behind. Institutions are a wineskin, not the wine. If a wineskin is breaking down, it’s okay to pour the wine into new wineskins. I’m an outsider looking in, but that’s how I view the Global Methodist Church: it’s not a breaking up of Methodism, but rather a pouring of what remains of traditional Methodism into a new wineskin.
Our little, rural church went through the discernment process with our DS as prescribed by the NE Conference. The outcome was, I think, inevitable at this point. Having been folded into a 3-point charge a couple years back, most of our parishioners are young in the faith and do not understand the issues. Besides that, we only discussed our stance on LGBTQ+ issues and not the larger malfeasance of our bishops and clergy. There was no path to separation where we would have a pastor, and that scared people. So we stayed. And my wife and I, and the other Lay Speaker stayed. Not so much for the redemption of the denomination (which I hold eminently possible as long as the Word is read and the Spirit moves), but to keep our little church alive and growing. I expect there are many such congregations in the US.
"At that church, they won’t have to deal with social media stories about the shenanigans in their denomination." Yes! throughout the centuries, there have always been non-orthodox pastors in the most orthodox of denominations. Historically, these folks were dealt with by a strong, orthodox unified central authority. the UMC's choice to establish the jurisdictions, plus the seminary council as multiple central authorities is what led to the downfall of our orthodox positions - looking back, it was inevitable that at least one of these authorities would become non-orthodox. This, combined with the increased mobility and communication of the ordinary congregational member, has led to the "recent unpleasantness". For 70 years ago, what happened in Boise, for instance, with a fallen pastor stayed in Boise or at worst in Idaho. Now, what happens in the smallest church in the smallest town has the potential to be spread worldwide by social media. And so, the real problem today with strong denominations is the damage to the "brand" spreads worldwide. If I were starting a denomination today - say, "The AAA Association of Godly Churches", I'd have a clause that says you can associate with us, you can work with us, you can use materials we develop (in essence, the denomination becomes a service provider) - but don't you dare claim publicly to belong to this denomination, because one bad pastor can damage our brand - so pick a name that doesn't include "AAA Association of Godly Churches" on the marque, for without a central, very strong authority that can kick a pastor out for the slightest deviation - every denomination is prone to fall because of a single bad pastor - and I'm not sure that we Americans are at all interested in that degree of central control over pastoral speech and theology. Looking forward to reading more of your fine essays!
Great to be reading your writing, David. I'll have to opine that if history is any guide, "Operation Reconquista", effort to "retake" institutions in the name of Christ, with the things we have that He has Personally said firmly in mind, will fade away.
The obvious original precedent is the Roman churches. The Lutheran reconquista failed altogether, though the Lord has rewarded those faithful to Him and unfaithful to the institution of this world it was intended to reconquer. And some embedded within the Roman domination were and remain unconcerned with the weird self-promotions and self-exaltations of their magisterium, not very unlike many humble of the Orthodox.
I'll suspect that the Eastern Orthodox parallel never happened simply because its humble and faithful folk never respected its traditional dominationalists much at all, because of how humble they had no choice but to be..Those dominationalists no longer have the power they had, are humbled themselves, and so we have a different pattern there, at least for now. It will be interesting to see what happens with them.
Another attempted reconquista, was the charismatic/pentacostalist effort beginning in the late 1800's, with a dramatic visibility starting in the very early 1900's. This one is still going on, though weakening over time, because of a common severe lack of concern for what we have that Christ the Lord has Personally said. Even now it is far more of a shade of grey within many churches than anything else, and in some of its own churches, the shade is barely discernable, or not at all. Again, the Lord has rewarded the faithful, in and out of churches, and the institutions of this world wobble or wither in a fashion completely independent of the large-scale effort.
I will have to opine, that the study of the Lord's pattern is the key. He will reward the faithful, and He will use the unfaithful for His purposes, one of which is to motivate some to repent and become more faithful. He shall do this in, around, and through the entire world, and to whichever extent He chooses, all of the institutions of men and women.
I sympathize with your pain, brother. I shall pray the Lord gives you release as He gives me from my own institutional origins. As we mourn, the Holy One shall comfort us.
Really great insights about how the big picture requires an acknowledgment of power and interference from the episcopacy and the bureaucracy. I'm embarrassed that I didn't think of this in my coverage of them. I wonder if you'll agree with me in what I think Project Reconquista exposes. Namely, I think they expose that conservative Christians in the mainline identify as consumers and spectators rather than warriors and participants. If we had identities of those called to do spiritual warfare, I don't think it would be hard to expect us to stay and fight. But if we have been conditioned to put ourselves first, to seek comfort, to avoid conflict, then yeah, holding on and fighting the good fight just isn't going to be an option. The GMC is an answer in a situation in which those on the side of right aren't really willing to fight for it, but they are willing to pay some money, fill out some paperwork, and leave for it. Rather than letting the UMC hemorrhage out people who would then just fall away from church entirely, at least put people in a new institution. But it is a compromised position, it is doesn't address the fundamental problem: these people identify as civilians when they are actually combatants.
I didn't talk about it in these terms, but I covered this in a segment last Friday: https://youtu.be/w3s9TA_i7kY
Hey Jeffrey. Thanks for these comments. I see the issue a little differently than you do. For me, it would have been much easier to stay in the UMC. I have done my share of fighting, but I began to sense that it was time to build. I wanted to sow into what I felt was a move of God. Many who left the mainline have done so at great cost. Some have lost pensions and housing. Many have lost friendships and suffered public ridicule. And many who have left have done so with great uncertainty about their future. Perhaps there are people who have left for the reasons you have identified. My experience of most of those who left the UMC, particularly among the clergy, is different.