Militant groups of the hard-core faithful are working to redeem the old-line denominations.
Once known as mainline denominations, church groups such as United Methodists and Presbyterians have lately been dubbed “old-line” or “side-line.” Their loss of vitality, influence, and numerical strength has been regularly documented.
While defenders explain the declining numbers in demographic terms (members are dying off, and young people have been slow to take their place), many offer another explanation. They claim that mainline decline is traceable to a forsaking of warm-hearted, biblical faith in favor of theological fads and mistaken priorities.
But many conservatives who have lamented such trends are not ready to jump ship. They would rather try to change their denominations than leave them. United Methodist James Heidinger, for example, executive director of the conservative Methodist group Good News, says, “I happen to believe the early United Methodist circuit riders did a good job. There are more United Methodist churches than U.S. post offices, at least one in every United States county.” Heidinger is reluctant to give up on United Methodism’s great potential.
Barbara Weller, who in 1978 launched the United Church of Christ’s Biblical Witness Fellowship, articulates a similar motivation for staying. “The UCC is my church,” says Weller. “I was born into this church. My family has been in this church for generations. And I feel as if people have come in from the outside and stolen my church away. I don’t see why I should leave. I think I should take it back.”
In an effort to breathe new life into their churches, conservatives have formed a host of renewal organizations. The goals of these varied groups range from promoting a more biblical, orthodox theology to steering denominational leadership away from preoccupation with a liberal political agenda. Groups such as Good News and Biblical Witness Fellowship share both concerns.
Some renewal groups, on the other hand, are less concerned about shaping denominational policy and most eager to revitalize their denominations’ worship and spiritual life (see “Warming God’s ‘Frozen Chosen,’ ” p. 26). Charismatic-oriented groups, such as the Episcopal Renewal Ministries, bring like-minded believers together to encourage Spirit-filled worship and a vital prayer life. A similar group, the United Methodist Renewal Services Fellowship, has drawn over 3,000 to some of its annual meetings.
Other renewal organizations are dedicated to a more single-minded focus, like the National Evangelistic Association (NEA), directed by Disciples of Christ pastor Herb Miller. The group cites as its goal “to help churches and individuals fulfill the Great Commission of winning men and women to a deep and lasting commitment to Jesus Christ.” NEA’s program resources are used not only by the Disciples, but by those in other mainline denominations.
Whatever their differences, renewal groups share the ethos of a battle. In another era, United Methodists, Presbyterians, and members of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and United Church of Christ (denominations focused on in this article) might have debated the theological distinctives that gave rise to their respective denominations. Now executives of these denominations’ renewal groups meet yearly and find they may hold more in common with one another than with those in their own denominations. “When we get to talking about our churches,” observed Heidinger, “it sounds as though we’re talking about the same church.”
In his welcoming remarks at the founding conference of Presbyterians for Renewal (PFR) last year, Presbyterian pastor Paul Watermulder discussed the state of the Presbyterian Church (USA) (PCUSA) by urging participants to acknowledge that their church was ill. The diagnosis offered by other renewal leaders is much the same. Says Heidinger, “Our problem [as a denomination] is that we have defected from our biblical, theological tradition and have become vulnerable to a variety of fad theologies. Our crying need is to be faithful to the gospel, to see reformation in terms of the truth of the gospel and the authority of Scripture.”
An Alternative To “Social Whining”
Most renewal groups believe the mainline church’s emphasis on social action and political pronouncements has crowded out concern for personal holiness and evangelism. Mainline representatives in turn accuse their conservative critics of lacking a social conscience, of ignoring biblical mandates for social justice. They cite evangelicals’ relative silence during the civil-rights struggles of the sixties and in current efforts to dismantle apartheid in South Africa.
In response to these criticisms, Heidinger said renewal advocates by and large have publicly repented of their past failures in social ministry, adding, “There’s a good bit of mythology abroad in the land. And a part of that mythology is that evangelicals have no social concern.” He cited surveys, including a Gallup poll, suggesting that evangelicals are twice as likely to be involved in social ministry as are their liberal counterparts.
Said the UCC’s Weller, who was active in the civil-rights movement and in settling Vietnamese refugees, “We call what our church is doing right now not social action, but social whining. The church should be taking care of the poor and needy, instead of telling the government to do it.” (The UCC last year passed a resolution calling for government-subsidized minimum income for all families.)
So while conservative believers increasingly acknowledge that prayer is no substitute for social action, they emphasize that neither is social action a substitute for prayer, Bible study, and evangelism. Their primary purpose is not to criticize their denominations, say renewal leaders, but to challenge and help members take faith more seriously, in part by spreading it to others.
Warming God’s “Frozen Chosen”
Renewal organizations operate with a wide variety of aims and styles, as a glance at a few of the many groups demonstrates. While some are best known for their efforts to call their denominations back to theological orthodoxy, concern for spiritual vitality is at the heart of many groups’ missions.
The United Methodist Good News, for example, has since 1967 not only worked at changing denominational policy, it also has encouraged the recovery of spiritual commitment. Its Good News magazine has a circulation of about 18,000. Commenting on the organization’s yearly national convocation, Good News magazine executive editor James Robb said that “while it includes some preaching on Methodist ills, it is more like a camp meeting.”
Disciple Renewal of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) shares with Good News a similar agenda. Begun in 1985 with four people, some 2,000 now subscribe to its publication, also called Disciple Renewal. Unlike some denominations, the Disciples have no charismatic group, though some associated with Disciple Renewal are charismatic.
For many, renewal is best captured by the zeal and spiritual intensity of charismatic renewal groups, which can be found in a number of denominations, such as Presbyterian and United Methodist. These groups typically promote spiritual renewal at the local church and denominational levels through retreats, lay-witness events, and publications.
Episcopal Renewal Ministries (ERM) is one of the most influential of these. It was started in 1973, and according to ERM’s Kathie Tanner, has seen in recent years a substantial increase in the number of Episcopalians who identify with its renewal goals. Circulation of the ERM publication Acts 29 has grown from 25,000 subscribers three years ago to 75,000 today. The magazine aims to foster spiritual growth; it includes articles offering support and advice in such areas as how renewed people can minister among members of unrenewed congregations—God’s “frozen chosen,” in Tanner’s words. Though charismatic in orientation, the group defines renewal not only in terms of spiritual gifts, but also in terms of taking the Bible seriously and deepening a relationship with Christ. ERM sponsors clergy retreats oriented toward training, fellowship, and spiritual growth.
Members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) and other Lutheran bodies are served by the International Lutheran Renewal Center. Headed by Larry Christenson, the center has for years helped sponsor Lutheran conferences on the Holy Spirit, which in the seventies attracted as many as 25,000 participants. Recently the center’s efforts have had a more international flavor, says Christenson, developing networks with renewal-oriented Lutheran churches in Scandinavia, East and West Germany, India, and Tanzania. With interest in renewal building among churches outside Europe and North America, Christenson and others are optimistic that the momentum for renewal is not about to end—here or there.
By Randall L. Frame.
A Lack Of “Theological Vigilance”?
The role of Scripture is an issue high on the agenda of most renewal groups. Mainline members tend to rely just as readily on reason, tradition, and experience for spiritual truth as they do on Scripture. Renewal groups want to see that changed. John Humbert, president of the Disciples of Christ, alleges that evangelicals “have a tendency to worship the Bible itself, and not the truth that God reveals through the Bible.”
Renewal advocates argue in response that the church must return to affirming the theological tenets the church has held through the ages, as expressed in the Bible and orthodox statements of faith. This includes upholding as historically true the Virgin Birth and the physical resurrection of Christ, affirmations routinely questioned, if not denied, at mainline seminaries and by mainline church leaders.
According to Heidinger, evangelicals had a tendency in the past to give priority to evangelism and local-church ministry almost to the exclusion of involvement in denominational bureaucracy and policy shaping, leaving the liberals with control of the denomination.
“Part of the legacy of pietism,” says United Church of Christ theologian Donald Bloesch, “is that it has put Christian character and experience above doctrine.” This lack of “theological vigilance,” he suggests, explains in part how conservatives lost control of the denominational seminaries.
Renewal groups also typically fault their denominations’ leadership for providing neither the vision nor the practical resources—Sunday school materials and worship aids—conducive to a vibrant community of faith. According to Bloesch, this lack of vision and sensitivity has led denominational leadership to take some odd turns. The three most popular hymns among UCC members, for example—“The Old Rugged Cross,” “In the Garden,” and “How Great Thou Art”—do not even appear in the denomination’s hymnal.
Bloesch hopes for a conservative comeback in some mainline denominations. But he believes that despite renewal leaders’ oft-stated commitments of denominational loyalty, schism will be hard to avoid in some cases. “Right now in the Presbyterian and United Methodist denominations,” he said, “there are two churches under the same umbrella.” He added, “In the UCC there are different religions under the same umbrella,”—radical feminism, humanism, and universalism, among others.
Others are more hopeful. Pastor and PFR board member John Huffman maintains that Presbyterian evangelicals underestimate the influence they could have if they got involved with the church, adding there are plenty of examples, including himself, to prove his point. “Evangelicals are ‘free lancers’ by nature; we are politically not very savvy, because we like to run our own show.” He added that historically, schisms have been led by strong personalities who are incapable of compromise and therefore cannot function within a system. Huffman regrets renewal movements’ threats of schism, whether stated or implied: “Renewal will come not as a result of threats, but as a result of servant ministry from within.”
But the denominations will continue to change in significant ways, many renewal advocates believe, only through evangelicals becoming involved in the political machinery and winning victories at legislative assemblies. Renewal executives say that dialogue has by and large proved fruitless, and that the problem is not misperception or miscommunication, but genuine—and perhaps irreconcilable—theological differences.
Balancing Criticism With Praise
Many moderate renewal spokespersons argue it is simplistic to blame the mainline malaise exclusively on liberal bureaucrats. One way United Methodist churches are escorted to lifelessness, for example, is by ministers who—theological orientation aside—are incompetent. The problem lies partly with the church’s ministerial appointment system, not just with its pastors’ theological leanings.
Presbyterians who led the formation of Presbyterians for Renewal last year experienced firsthand the complications of running a bureaucracy. The group was formed largely because its constituents did not feel represented by the PCUSA. But immediately at the founding conference came questions—from women, from representatives of certain geographical regions, and others—whether the new group itself was sufficiently representative. Part of the problem, it appeared, is not liberal bureaucracy, but bureaucracy itself.
Huffman feels that evangelicals’ criticism of mainline denominations should be better balanced with praise for what they have accomplished. “Some of our denominations have paid a price for being prophetic,” he said, adding that renewal types should be open to the possibility of “being renewed in some ways by the very people we are trying to renew,” and to being stretched to recover anew the horizontal dimensions of the gospel.
Grains Of Salt, Not Hard Blocks
Renewal leaders seem to unite around the conviction that mainline churches have become preoccupied with a largely political agenda, to the neglect of other biblical and spiritual concerns.
Objections to the PCUSA’s political activities led to the establishment in 1985 of Presbyterians for Democracy and Religious Freedom (PDRF), for example. The group’s current head, Paul Scotchmer, maintains that the church in its pronouncements should restrict itself to “defending moral absolutes, defining social ends, and articulating the broad moral principles necessary for a healthy society.” Scotchmer distinguishes between “pronouncing on social ends” and advocating specific means, arguing that the church does not have the expertise to reach informed conclusions on issues of public and foreign policy.
Yet what Scotchmer is calling for is more neatly stated than applied, as he himself acknowledges. There are times, he believes, when the church should issue statements that have clear public-policy implications. He suggested a statement on abortion as an example, even while acknowledging that his own PDRF constituency is divided as to what such a statement would look like.
Although the idea of a “prophetic” statement is fraught with difficulties, Scotchmer believes the church must confine itself to the few issues it is uniquely qualified to address. He believes the mainline church has wrongly understood the concept of salt as “a hard block to clunk the U.S. government and people in the pews over the head with” through political pronouncements, instead of as tiny grains that change the flavor of society.
Resisting Giving Up
No assessment of mainline renewal activity is complete without noting that renewal leaders believe their concerns are too often routinely brushed aside by denominational bureaucrats. A 1984 survey among Presbyterians, for example, revealed that four of the six top priorities of church members were in line with what would be considered an evangelical agenda, including leading others to Christ and enriching family life. Those assigned to act on the areas identified by the survey apparently had different ideas about what was important. The four “evangelical” priorities were subsumed under a single ministry unit while most of the agenda items of those in charge got individual attention.
Renewal leaders from various churches have also charged that the lack of financial openness of their denominations would make Jim Bakker look good. Their frustration at having to struggle to gain access to records of how money is being spent is surpassed only by their anger when they do finally find out.
At the initiative of PDRF, the PCUSA last year adopted a policy opening church meetings to interested members. But if the adoption of such a policy is a sign of health, the need for such a policy may be a sign of illness. And those who feel the policy is not being implemented have no one to appeal to but the bureaucracy.
Amid such realities, many in the renewal movements are trying to resist the temptation to give up. Moderates point out that many, if not most, of those who control the denominational bureaucracies are people of integrity with good motives. But, says the PCUSA’s Watermulder, “The great ends of the church are somehow being swallowed up by well-meaning leaders who are doing what is important but not what is essential.”
Mainline renewal groups hope that scenario can be changed. Their actions, and sometimes their accusations, may threaten and unsettle. But renewal groups and their leaders are cautiously optimistic that their advocacy will help restore their ailing denominations to spiritual and institutional health.
The Issue that Won’t Go Away
A 1982 touchdown reception by Dwight Clark is known to San Francisco 49er fans as “the Catch.” A 1987 John Elway-led touchdown drive is remembered by Denver Bronco fans as “the Drive.” And within mainline churches, homosexuality is referred to by some as “the Issue.” Many conservatives in mainline churches watch this issue the closest, observers say, as they decide whether to stay or leave. “It’s been seen by both sides as a watershed issue for a long time,” said United Methodist James Robb, executive editor of Good News magazine.
The picture is similar from denomination to denomination. Renewal leaders believe they represent the majority opinion in their denominations by regarding homosexual behavior as sin. But they perceive influential voices in denominational leadership circles advocating denominational acceptance of homosexuality and the ordination of homosexuals. Most denominations have gay/lesbian lobbying groups.
In the late 1970s, the top lawmaking bodies in the northern and southern Presbyterian churches (which eventually merged to form the Presbyterian Church [USA]) went on record as opposing ordination of homosexuals. A denominational Task Force on Human Sexuality is due to report its conclusions in 1991; “the Issue” is among its top concerns.
The highest lawmaking body of the United Methodist Church has rejected ordination of avowed, practicing homosexuals, and the church’s book of social principles deems homosexual behavior “incompatible with Christian teaching.” A committee studying the issue is due to report in 1992. According to Robb, less than a fourth of the 24 committee members could be considered supporters of the church’s current position.
Homosexuals are being ordained by some regional bodies in the United Church of Christ and the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). Statements by Disciples leaders, as well as those issued at the church’s biennial general assembly, reflect acceptance of homosexual practice. Such statements are not binding on Disciples churches.
The highest lawmaking body of the Episcopal Church has officially opposed the ordination of avowed, practicing homosexuals. Groups within the church are at odds over how to deal with cases in which this prohibition is defied.
Despite the official statements, “the Issue” remains largely unsettled. Some predict that if it is ever settled definitively, mainline churches may see an exodus on the part of either proponents or opponents of the acceptance of homosexual behavior.
By Randall L. Frame.
