Where is Methodism going? The writer does not really know where Methodism is bound. Like the mythical bird that flies backward, he only knows where he has been.
One might say that Methodism is going back to Wesley, for there are signs of renewed interest in its founder and increased emphasis upon doctrines that he taught. One might prophesy a great awakening among the Methodists, but so far evidences of such a development are slight. Many among us feel that our denomination may have gone so far along the road to liberalism that any movement now must be back to the fundamentals of our faith—or back to Christ. But others see Methodism beating a retreat from the evangelistic and theological renascence in favor of a new movement toward “liberalism.” It is probable that most Methodist ministers and laymen, like their counterparts in other denominations, look for nothing more than a continuance of the “status quo” which, in the words of a country preacher, “is the Latin for the fix we is in.”
With this disclaimer of superior insight and prophetic foresight, I shall say frankly what I think I see. But before we peer into the future, we must look at the past. I do not know for a certainty where Methodism is going, but I do know where she has been.
THE LIGHT OF HOPE
John Wesley had come into St. Paul’s Cathedral of London a broken and a defeated man. He had failed as a missionary in far-off Georgia where he had gone as chaplain to the colonizer, General Oglethorpe. Despite education at Oxford and holy orders as a priest in the Church of England, and despite the fact that under his leadership young men of Oxford had founded the Holy Club in attempt to bring back primitive Christianity to a dying organization and had succeeded in making religion real to themselves and many others—he himself was not satisfied in his own soul.
He came in defeated but went out with the light of hope in his eyes, for in the words of the psalm, De Profundis, God had spoken to his heart on that day.
That was, I think, the beginning of the Methodist revival which resulted in a reformation in English morals and manners and a movement of vital religion which not only spread around the world as a denominational effort but influenced other Christian groups to an extent seldom realized. Today Baptists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and others are acknowledging their debt to this man and to the new understanding of evangelical religion and personal salvation which he taught.
Down the street from St. Paul’s the little priest walked, praying in his heart for more light; and as he wandered he found himself led in the direction of Aldersgate street where a little group of German refugees were holding frequent prayer services. It was only a hall, not a church, although it belonged to the Established Church; and those who gathered there must have been Moravians, followers of Count Zinzendorf. There was no preacher and no choir—only a poor man whose name no one knows, who read to his friends Martin Luther’s preface to the book of Romans in which the great Reformer described the change which took place in the hearts of those that truly trusted in Christ for salvation.
Wesley did not want to go there. He says that he went unwillingly, but he went nonetheless; and there the change took place in his own life which shook the world again even as it happened with the little priest of Wittenberg.
Later John Wesley wrote in his Journal that he had felt his heart strangely warmed. He described the meeting there in a few words:
“I felt,” he said, “my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone, for salvation; and an assurance was given me that he had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death.”
Here, in these words, as he understood them, is the secret of Methodism—a personal faith in a personal Saviour. Here, too, is the Reformation basis of Methodist belief. The distinctive Methodist doctrine of the witness of the Spirit is the outgrowth of Wesley’s experience, for he believed and taught that while experiences varied in different individuals it was always possible and desirable that each one should have a “know-so” religion based not upon feeling (as some of his followers later taught) but upon simple faith in Christ.
METHODIST ORGANIZATION
Fundamental to the understanding of modern American Methodism is a study of its organization, for Methodists have been leaders in that field. Wesley during his lifetime exercised autocratic control over his preachers, and modern Methodists are still the most supervised people outside the Roman Catholic church. We have no pope, no man who can control the church. Bishops supervise, energize, and seldom apologize; but they are controlled by the General Conference made up of elected representatives from the smaller units called Annual Conferences.
Where are we heading in this matter of organization? Like all denominations and all organizations today we are becoming more and more centralized and supervised. In some sections, bishops still exercise their right to make the appointments; and although they must consult with their assistants, or district superinendents, they can take any appointment into their own hands. In other sections, especially in the northern states, the bishops have largely delegated appointments to the superintendents, and these in turn have given more voice to representatives of the congregations. In some cases a congregation has demanded and obtained the man they wanted despite the disapproval of bishop and cabinet.
In the matter of appointments, Methodism is rapidly coming to consider the laity. As a usual thing, all ministerial appointments are discussed with the pastoral relations committees of the local churches, and wherever possible their wishes are respected. (However, as in other denominations it is impossible to give every church a young minister, married but with no children, who can sing like an angel, pray like Elijah, preach like Paul, and manage affairs of the church like a bishop.)
The future seems to hold promise of enlarging democracy in this regard, but such a development will cause more and more headaches and dissatisfaction on the part of congregations. Methodists have for more than a hundred years been accustomed to accepting whoever was sent and blaming the “system” when things went wrong.
INTERNAL PROBLEMS
The Methodist Church is composed of a union of three denominations, all springing from the original Methodist Episcopal Church founded in 1784. A split over the slavery question in 1844 gave rise to the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. Controversy over lay representation and the opposition of some to the episcopal system had already resulted in the formation of the Methodist Protestant Church.
In this union lay problems which have not been solved. The northern group (Methodist Episcopal Church) had held to a conception of the powers of the General Conference which were rejected by the southern church. In the North, the General Conference had the power of electing bishops and, if necessary, dismissing them for grave cause. In the South, the General Conference elected the bishops also, but these general superintendents were not controlled to such an extent by the General Conference. The philosophy of the North with regard to federal authority in the time of the Civil War still permeates the church in that section. Southern Methodists gave large authority to the General Conference; but when confronted by the question of whether that body was to be always and in every way superior to the Annual Conferences, they usually found it difficult to assent to such a proposition. In other words, the South, in church affairs as well as in politics, believed in “States’ Rights.”
The past few years have added to the tension between the groups, yet there is no tendency toward separation in the church, taken as a whole. Small groups of southern Methodists, largely laymen in Texas and Mississippi, are at present promoting a “secession” movement, but with little success. Most southern Methodists recognize the fact that the church has united three groups with slightly different theories of church government, and that the northern group cannot be expected to agree with them on matters such as integration and the jurisdictional system. Outvoted usually by the larger group, former southern Methodists and Methodist Protestants have been encouraged by the brotherly charity of northern Methodists who usually are willing to compromise.
JURISDICTIONAL SYSTEM
There is disagreement, confessedly, and it may reach the stage of argument at the next General Conference in Denver in 1960. Many northern Methodists are pressing for elimination of the Jurisdictional System introduced as a compromise measure at the time of union. This system divides the church into five geographical and one racial jurisdiction. Each jurisdiction elects bishops for its own section, but these are for the church as a whole and they may, under certain conditions, be allowed to cross jurisdictional boundaries. Many leaders of the former M. E. Church (northern) wish to abolish the entire jurisdictional system; some want only to do away with the Central Jurisdiction. Delegates from southern states are expected to insist upon retention of the entire system, but already, at the preceding General Conference in 1956, they had agreed to legislation making possible the abolition of the Central Jurisdiction whenever all Conferences belonging to it had been absorbed into other jurisdictions. Undoubtedly, this agreement was gained because of the southern group’s belief that such absorption would not be possible for many years.
Southerners point out that their opposition to abolishing the Central Jurisdiction stems from something more than a desire to keep Negro Methodists separate. They contend that doing away with the present system would completely abandon one of the principal bases of union, for the jurisdictional system was a part of the constitution of the united church. Methodists in the North, also thinking along traditional lines, see in the dividing of authority between General Conference and Jurisdictional Conferences the same problem which caused the Civil War. They favor strong central government in church as well as in State. Lack of understanding of the South’s problems regarding race and political system is a danger to union, but there are indications of growing awareness and greater sympathy. Leaders in the North are really not unsympathetic toward the South, and no tension arises between sections in the church when they come together for their various meetings. Methodism bids fair to weather this small storm without damage.
THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS
Methodism has never been fond of theological controversy; troubles have stemmed generally from arguments about organization and polity. A few splits have occurred where there seemed to be an element of theological division, but on further analysis the quarrel has usually been over some question of authority. The Church of the Nazarene, one of the finest of the several small groups which went out from the parent body, based its opposition on the indifference of Methodist leaders toward what its adherents considered the distinctive Methodist doctrine of Perfect Love; but what actually caused the loss of many Methodist members was a feeling that the church was too autocratic in its actions.
The theology of Methodism can be found, in part at least, in Twenty-five Articles of Religion, taken and condensed from the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England. These articles are still printed in the Discipline and officially counted as binding upon Methodists. In practice, however, they have not been emphasized much though Methodists in general agree with them.
Modern Methodism is not the Methodism of yesterday. Where once it was made up of small groups of believers converted to a way of life, it is now largely composed of members who accept church membership as a part of life. Once Methodists were all first generation Christians, having found an experience of salvation which gave meaning to their nominal allegiance to the State Church. While thousands of other men in England loved the Church as an institution and gave lip service to its doctrines, Methodists found in those same doctrines a whole new concept of life and went out to tell the world of their discovery.
PERSONAL SALVATION
Early Methodism did not start out by formulating a creed. That had been done long before, and Wesley found no fault with the Articles of Religion of the Church of England. He saw no need for a new theology and always contended that he was only preaching what he had learned as a priest in that church. Thus no great amount of theological argument was stirred up by the Methodist movement, except in the matter of Arminianism versus Calvinism. By and large, Methodists were more concerned over personal salvation and evangelism than with the arguments of the theologians. Certainly they felt that they were on firm ground so far as orthodoxy was concerned, for they only proclaimed what they read in the Bible and found reflected in the Book of Common Prayer.
As in the past, Methodist ministers are seldom found among the great theologians, although some certainly are capable of clear thinking and writing on theological matters. The truth is that up to now we have been notorious for lack of interest in systematic theology. We have turned from thinking about faith to a consideration of how to make faith work in the world. In doing so, it may be argued, we have lost contact with the foundations of our faith and may be likened to the man who spends his days perfecting his gun and then finds that he has no ammunition.
SOCIAL SALVATION
Perhaps because of this lack of theological training and interest, Methodism so easily turned to schemes of world betterment and social uplift as a substitute for the declining evangelistic urge. During the twenties a large segment of the church held a confused faith in God and Christ, and turned to faith in social progress. We espoused the cause of prohibition with fervor and dedication; we accepted the idea that sin was tied up with poverty, and we believed that eradication of one would do away with the other. Liberalism became the shibboleth in some sections of the church; in others a conservatism was almost equally devoid of spiritual life. But Methodism weathered the storm of controversy over Modernism without any split in the ranks, possibly because of a lack of interest in theological controversy.
There is hope that the turning point has been reached, and that we are now beginning to understand that sound faith must be based on theology. There are signs of a new attitude toward theology on the part of our younger men, and Methodist seminaries are no longer primarily concerned with preaching methods and promotional schemes.
There is a growing disposition of young people to turn to theology for an explanation of the ills of the world. They are asking why the teaching of amelioration and social progress has not succeeded in abolishing sin and its effects—why all our efforts to make people better by law and prosperity have failed to give us a perfect world.
Where once rather formal programs of revivalism were a set part of Methodist life—with a “revival” every year in every church, no matter what the incentive or the outcome was—the emphasis now is upon a more positive evangelism which depends upon Christian witness in an effort to win people to Christ. Methodists have in large part supported the mass evangelistic crusades of Billy Graham despite past disillusionment with similar methods. Being pragmatists by nature, they are inclined to favor anything that will work.
A LITURGICAL REVIVAL?
If I were to say that a liturgical revival is underway in Methodism, I would be going too far. I say only that there are signs of it.
Methodism in America made up originally and by necessity a very informal church. This was not so in the days of Wesley in England, for Wesley used the Prayer Book, exalted the Sacraments, and had little patience with those who tried to get along without systematic forms of prayer and worship. He felt that he needed only to infuse a bit of divine fire into the bare bones of churchly ritual to make it live. But Methodists then were only a religious society within the Church of England. They depended upon its ministers for the Sacraments and carefully scheduled their services of prayer and preaching so as not to conflict with the Church.
THE TRADITIONAL ORDER
From these extra-liturgical services American Methodists took their pattern, for it fitted well the simple needs of the frontier. American Methodists deprived of the services of ordained clergymen and forced to rely upon local preachers, could not carry on the pattern of church life which was a part of life in England. Thus they got into the habit of making the Sunday morning service a simple hour of preaching and singing which, while undoubtedly acceptable to the Lord as true worship, lacked the elements of liturgical worship in the best sense. When this was formalized into a pattern and when the old time fire of evangelism had died down, little was left.
Modern Methodists are recovering the understanding of the centrality of worship and are making use of liturgical patterns which have been used in the Church since early times. A recent article in CHRISTIANITY TODAY called attention to the efforts of the Methodist Order of St. Luke in fostering a liturgical revival. As president of that Order since its founding, I am rather surprised at the attention it has received outside the denomination. Actually, it is not too well known among Methodists, although its membership includes many leaders in the church, and it has had some influence in a quiet way.
We are happy to see that Methodist churches are no longer being designed as mere preaching halls or places for social gatherings. They seldom resemble, as they once did, public libraries, court houses, or Mohammedan mosques; and inside it would be hard to tell the difference between them and the sanctuaries of the Lutherans and Episcopalians. The old prejudice against the wearing of clerical garb is passing away, and the gown has replaced the sport clothes as garb for Sunday morning ministries.
WESLEYAN SACRAMENTALISM
But all of this is merely superficial and has little bearing on the matter of liturgical worship. If there is no inner certainty and inner compulsion to preach the Gospel by word and deed, then the above is mere window trimming. Far more encouraging than the trend toward liturgical worship patterns and more beautiful churches is the growing awareness on the part of the clergy that there is something they can do for the people besides preach at them. Remembering the need for comfort and consolation, for strengthening and building believers in the faith, the minister is turning more and more to the Sacraments of the Church and considering himself in terms of priest as well as prophet. Along with the movement toward a Wesleyan type of sacramentalism (not sacramentarianism), he is feeling impelled toward evangelism of a new type, a giving of himself as servant to God and to the people, while still maintaining a confidence in the historical doctrines of the Church.
Methodism shows signs of becoming weary of the ever-increasing demands of organization and special programs. (We still have far too many ministers serving tables than serving the altar.) Methodists have become disillusioned with the promises of the Utopians, and are more and more convinced that they are workers together with God in telling the story of salvation, of seeing hearts transformed and lives amended through the power of the Gospel.
Still in danger of becoming more of an institution and less of a movement, Methodists nonetheless sense the life that is within the institution and blow upon the fire which once warmed them. Perhaps in time it will become again a mighty flame.
R. P. Marshall served as Pastor and Editor within the Methodist Church since 1932. Presently he is Editor of The North Carolina Christian Advocate and President of The Order of St. Luke (Methodist). He has lectured in various seminaries.
