As the United Methodists Split, Perhaps a New Evangelicalism Will Arise

So, the ‘United’ Methodist Church in the USA is going to split—that is, if everyone can carry the apparently amicable divorce agreement all the way through the process at the General Conference in May this year.  My goodness, this has been a long time coming!  Ecclesiastical wheels have no oil.
I remember speaking to a senior Methodist scholar about the situation several years ago.  ‘Oh,’ he said, ‘a split will never happen because we Methodists are an international denomination.  African Methodists will hold us together.’  I let the comment go, but I wondered how he came to such reasoning in light of the even larger Anglican Communion just earlier going through a break-up in its US province.  The Episcopal Church saw departures of orthodox Christian churches and dioceses, helped by African archbishops, that finally led to most of them coming together in 2009 as the Anglican Church of North America, with others following.  Why wouldn’t the Methodists see a similar thing happen?  (Except, thank God, the liberal Methodists are letting the orthodox believers separate without going down the path of litigation—to the tune of millions and millions of dollars—that the Episcopal Church, like a miserly octogenarian who hates his children on his death-bed, has followed.)

And now the Methodists are separating.  One Methodist is predicting that there will be several denominations, not just two, after the divorce.  And there may be some marriages as well.  In ecclesiastical circles, the next few years should prove quite interesting as America’s second Protestant denomination forms new fellowships and its institutions reconfigure to account for new financial realities.  What, for example, will happen to the thirteen non-Evangelical Methodist seminaries and to the Evangelical, non-denominational seminary that actually trains more Methodist ministers than any other—Asbury Theological Seminary?  I should imagine that Asbury will do rather well as over 2 million Evangelical/orthodox Methodists cease to support the likes of Duke, Garrett, or Emory, and the latter will surely have to tighten their belts—there will be no alimony to sustain these wayward spouses after the divorce.

The intrigues of this separation aside, a different sort of question sits foremost in my mind.  What will come of ‘Evangelicals’ in America?  I am somewhat interested in what will happen to all parties, and there will be Evangelicals who might opt to stay in the non-Evangelical denominations that form—as happened with other mainline denominations.  Staying in rather than leaving can be a calling, a ministry—it is what I call ‘hospice ministry’, since all the mainline denominations have been in continuous decline since the 1960s.  Good people remain, like the elderly grandmother who just can’t move out of the declining neighbourhood for any number of reasons, and such people need care.  The no-longer-orthodox mainline denominations are also fruitful ground for evangelism, but not places to raise children.  ‘Staying’ can still be a good choice for some.  But there is to be no further talk of renewal or revival—no more than one would hope for this among other groups that have so utterly departed from the pilgrim’s path to sit inebriated in pubs along the way, worshipping culture over Christ.

So, what will become of Evangelicals in America?  The largest Protestant group, the Southern Baptist Convention, saw its purge of those disvaluing Scripture and orthodox Christianity back in the 1990s and early 2000s.  This also involved retrenchment, as lines hardened in ways that cut through relationships with other Evangelicals.  The Baptists have their own version of Evangelical.  And so on with other denominations.  The Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Presbyterian Church in America, and Evangelical Presbyterian Church have all broken off from the mainline Presbyterian Church in America over the decades, giving definitions to their own groups that are distinct enough to leave the question on the table, ‘What will happen to the agreements across these borders to allow a new ‘Evangelical’ movement to arise?’  Indeed, what will be the ‘Evangelical’ identity as Anglicans, Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Methodists now have their own orthodox, denominational identities?

Writers of all sorts have spent time in the past several years decrying the state of Evangelicalism.  Some are biographers, trying to make sense of the life of Billy Graham and Evangelicalism.  Some are historians, although some of these seem to have politics in mind more than history.  Some are theologians.  And some are reporters or bloggers throwing in their opinions.  To be sure, all this is driven by the perfect storm of events in the denominations and the popular surge of an anti-Washington politic, anti-fake-news journalism, and anti-wasteful foreign policy led by the current president.  There are many who want to define ‘Evangelical’ as a political block, and now there are those who want to give further definition to this by either ‘coming out’ as virtue-signalling, ‘elite’ (God help us!), anti-Trump Evangelicals or as pro-Trump supporters.  If successful, either group will destroy the future of Evangelicalism as an orthodox Christian revival movement, crushing it in the dust of American politics.

What the break-up of the Methodists might mean, however, is the opportunity to give a better definition to ‘Evangelical’ than we have been dealt in the past several decades because of both political and denominational turmoil.  We now have—or will soon have—orthodox Evangelical denominations representing the various Protestant traditions.  We have had Baptists, Anglicans, Pentecostals, Lutherans, and Presbyterians—and several other groups—and will now have Methodists living faithfully to their orthodox, Christian heritage.  (And, to be sure, we have had Wesleyan representation of orthodoxy in smaller denominations already.)  The point is that there is no longer any reason theologically for any church to remain independent.

During the descent of mainline denominations into various heresies since the 1960s—including, of course, ethics, adopting pro-abortion and culturally correct versions of sexual promiscuity, and advocating sins against nature—and the break-up of mainline denominations, one thing has emerged on the Evangelical side: the independent church.  Understandable as this outcome has been, it is time to look for realignments and new relationships for the sake of ministry.  The independent church movement is the death of mission.  

Many people, from laity to scholars, have framed the discussion during the period of mainline divorces (1960s-2020) around the word ‘unity’, grabbing ‘unity’ passages of Scripture like John 17 for their cause (and, in the process, misunderstanding them completely).  Unity, however, is not an absolute ideal or a cardinal virtue for Christians—anyone reading Jesus’ criticisms of established religion would have to admit this, let alone the comments made about false prophets and teachers throughout Scripture.  Unity is a secondary virtue, derived from adherence and obedience to God alone (in the Old Testament), to Christ our Head (in the New Testament).  The purpose of ministry is not ‘ecumenism’; ‘in Christ’ unity and partnership in the Gospel are, however, needed for ministry.  (Ironically, I write this as Pope Francis, the Tony Blair of Roman Catholicism, is in the headlines advocating the affirmation of various faiths rather than standing for Christ.)  Coordinated missionary work by orthodox denominations is also needed.

This does not call for lengthy explanation.  How many mega-churches around the country are building their own little kingdoms, with their inadequate statements of faith, their lack of history, their meagre connectivity to others, their refusal to relate to an authority structure outside of themselves, their support of their own little mission projects or independent missionaries serving with independent mission agencies….  The kingdom of God on earth is not built without some coordination from its Kingdom developing agents.  As the new denominations that are now free from the internal battles with heretical leaders, teachers, and ministers establish their doctrinal and ecclesial identities, I am hopeful that they will also bring new vitality to ‘Evangelicalism’. 

Look around for so-called ‘Evangelical leaders’ (I use this term loosely).  Who are they?  Typically, they are independent heads of one sort of ministry or another—a Christian university, a Christian relief ministry, a mega-church pastor.  The spotlight for ‘Evangelicals’ is on individuals, not groups, who grab the microphone or are given it by popular ‘news’ outlets more interested in headlines and audiences than truth.  The primary meaning of 'Evangelicalism' is to be found in the orthodox movement's missionary work bringing Gospel transformation to individuals and society.  Perhaps a clarification of  Evangelicalism can come as the new Evangelical denominations form relationships with one another to define their common faith and common calling in mission.  With unity in orthodoxy—including ethics—now defined by the major, orthodox, Protestant traditions, unity can be formed for the purpose of mission.  This, I do hope, will be the basis for Evangelical identity going forward.

There is work to do.  The new denominations need to talk with each other.  They need to form ministry together—whether in supporting education, including theological education, in missionary work, or some other work.  And this talking and this work will not be isolated to American denominations.  The other new reality, especially evident in Anglican and Methodist ecclesiastical circles, is that the definition of ecclesial identity is international.  (It is not, of course, between America and the UK, where viable, robust, and orthodox denominations have not emerged from the ashes of mainline denominations.)  I am quick to say that ‘international’ might easily be misconstrued in an era that has developed odd views around multiculturalism and diversity—as though these are cardinal virtues.  Yet orthodoxy has always sought agreement everywhere, always, and by all.  That is, it is not simply a political ‘representation of groups’ that is desired but the theological ‘agreement of groups’ that is required.  This international dialogue and partnership should lead to a revitalized notion of ‘Evangelical’ and to transforming initiatives for Evangelical missions.  Let us hope so.