Perceptions from a Pewboy

In one of the more compelling developments within the United Methodist tradition, the leaders of GracePoint Community Church (a vital and fast-growing faith community in Wichita, Kansas) made the decision a couple of weeks ago to break away from the United Methodist denomination in order to form a new nondenominational congregation.

An article on this development can be found here.

I am not privy to all of the details surrounding GracePoint’s ministry and Rev. Bryson Butts’ decision to surrender his clergy credentials. Therefore, I will refrain from saying more than I should about that situation.

Of greater interest to me is the ever-deepening tension that can frequently be found between United Methodism’s institutional structure and the vision of some of the denomination’s fastest-growing churches.

In the land of blog, many of the responses to GracePoint’s decision to leave the denomination have revolved around two extremes.

The first extreme (and perhaps the most authentically postmodern) is what might be called the “blatantly anti-institutional” response. This response, in essence, goes something like this: “Of course GracePoint church made the right call. After all, the United Methodist institution and hierarchy are far more interested in preserving themselves than incarnating the Kingdom of God in fresh ways. Denominational structures are on their way out. They are dusty reminders of an era of Christendom that no longer exists. Therefore, GracePoint’s decision was inevitable. That church simply had the courage to do what every church that wants to create multiple campuses HAS to do—specifically, break free from the shackles of denominationalism in order to follow the leading of the Spirit.”

The other extreme articulated by many responding to GracePoint’s decision might be called the “blatantly denominational” response. It goes this way: “How arrogant and self-serving of GracePoint church to leave the denomination that paid for its creation in the first place and provided it with its rich spiritual and theological heritage! Without the denominational institution, there is far too much opportunity for a lack of covenantal accountability and theological integrity. After all, United Methodists are nothing if they are not connectional. For GracePoint to break that connection in the name of following the Holy Spirit is as bumptious as it is foolhardy.”

Interestingly, as a District Superintendent, I am currently part of a denominational hierarchy that many consider to be more a part of the problem than the solution. Nevertheless, as we navigate our way through these challenging ecclesiastical times, I cannot help but wonder if it is possible for us to resist two very specific and very prevalent forms of idolatry: Specifically, an idolatry of denominational loyalty that compels us to demonize all who would choose to go outside of the institutional church; and, on the other side, an idolatry of autonomy that compels us to demonize the denomination as nothing more than an oppressive remnant of a bygone age.

How does one avoid such idolatries, especially in light of the fact that the idols are firmly placed in the middle of a couple of well-established camps?

I don’t have an answer. Perhaps you do.

I conclude with a few observations:

Given the growth of churches like Church of the Resurrection, Ginghamsburg, and Western Pennsylvania’s very own Crossroads (three churches that have created radically new and fruitful ministry while at the same time remaining aligned with the United Methodist denomination), I choose to believe that it is still very much possible for evangelical fervor, iconoclastic ministry, and denominational identity to coexist in a meaningful and redemptive way. Of course, there will always be occasions when it will be the RIGHT thing for a pastor or a congregation to sever ties with a particular denomination (for a variety of logistical or theological reasons). I am not advocating a “give me United Methodism or give me death” kind of stance here. I am simply emphasizing the point that an alignment with a denomination’s heritage and institutional structure need not be looked upon as being automatically antithetical to creative growth.

Second, what I have found in my encounters with some of United Methodism’s newest and fastest-growing churches is that, in many cases, those churches are willing to lead the institution (instead of waiting for the institution to lead them). This, I think, is the denominational institution’s best hope for a meaningful survival—assuming that the pastors of those churches are able to maintain their spirit of humility and accountability and assuming that the facilitators of the denominational institution are willing to be led into creative and unsettling new territory.

Third, the “institutional” issues of the appointment system, the itinerant ministry, and mission share cannot be eliminated from this conversation. How does United Methodism create a sense of healthy balance between demanding accountability to these institutional requirements and allowing churches and pastors to develop freely and creatively? That’s a bigger question than I know how to tackle right now.

Fourth, I am glad that I am part of an Annual Conference that allows and perhaps even encourages its churches (like Crossroads) to develop different campuses in the region. I am not blind to the dangers of such expansion. Nor am I blind to the lack of communication that can often exist between the ministry of the new campus and the ministry of the already-existing churches near to the new campus. (We need a great deal of relational work in that regard.) But I am thankful that the institutional church in Western Pennsylvania has seen fit to bless and support creative expansion instead of getting in the way of it.

Fifth, I am still concerned about the theological accountability of some of our newer churches—and some of our oldest churches too, quite frankly. We are not theological orphans, after all. We, as United Methodists, are the progeny of a deeply rich theological heritage that represents an important voice within the body of Christ. We have much to say about justification, sanctification, atonement, perfection, rebirth, baptism, the Lord’s Supper, worship, the life of ministry, and a host of other important theological issues. Believe me, I am no theological prude. But I want for our United Methodist churches to be distinctively Wesleyan in their theology and ministry, not because John Wesley had a monopoly on the truth, but because that is who we are.

Finally, I pray that both the present and the next generation of leaders in the church will commit themselves to helping the church to find a way to minister that firmly stands against both an idolatry of denominationalism and an idolatry of autonomy.

The inception and rapid growth of the Methodist movement in Eighteenth Century England make for an inspiring story of spiritual awakening. A key feature of the Methodist movement was the development of the Methodist classes and societies. Classes were small gatherings in which Christian believers would meet regularly for the purpose of prayer, study of Scripture, and holy accountability. Several of these Methodist classes would then be grouped together in a “society,” which, of course, generated a larger and more expansive sense of community for the people called Methodist.

Always eager to practice good oversight and leadership in the Methodist movement, John Wesley, the founder of the movement, formulated what came to be known as “the three general rules.” The general rules, which still appear in the United Methodist Book of Discipline, were designed to remind the early Methodists of the kind of life to which they were being called through Jesus Christ. The three general rules are these:

-First, DO NO HARM. (Wesley further explained his rule as the avoidance of every kind of evil, including the vain usage of God’s name, engagement in activities that do not glorify God, drunkenness, and unrestrained self-indulgance.)

-Second, DO GOOD. (Wesley defined goodness here as the regular offering of Christlike love and mercy to all people, coupled with the rendering of compassionate ministry to those who are hungry, marginalized, sick, or imprisoned.)

-Third, ATTEND UPON ALL THE ORDINANCES OF GOD (For Wesley, these “ordinances” included the public worship of God, family and private prayer, searching the Scripture, fasting, and the regular celebration of the Lord’s Supper.)

These three general rules, according to Wesley, were to govern the thinking and behavior of the Methodist classes and societies. Methodists, in other words, were to be people who did no harm, who instead did good, and who diligently attended upon the ordinances of God, all for the sake of Jesus Christ and his kingdom.

In recent days, a United Methodist Bishop by the name of Reuben Job wrote an excellent little book entitled “Three Simple Rules: A Wesleyan Way of Living.” In the book, Bishop Job suggests that it is time for United Methodist followers of Jesus to rediscover and reclaim the three rules as an ethical paradigm for the life of discipleship.

Our current episcopal leader in Western Pennsylvania, Bishop Tom Bickerton, gave the “Three Simple Rules” book to all of his pastors as a Christmas gift this year. This week, I joined some of my colleagues in ministry for a two-day retreat during which Bishop Bickerton lead us in a reflection on the three simple rules.

I currently find myself praying over how the three simple rules might impact the current season of my discipleship to Jesus Christ.

How might I become more intentional about doing no harm? (This question compels me to examine my life for the purpose of discerning where it is that I am wounding the souls of others with my sarcasm, my flippancy, my quickness to anger, my eagerness to have the last word and win the debate, my cavalier insults, and my arrogant efforts to put people in their place when I disagree with them.)

How might I become more intentional about doing good? (How is it, in other words, that I might cultivate a passion for doing the good and merciful thing instead of the destructive and hurtful thing? And what might some of those “good things” be into which God is currently calling me to pour myself?)

How might I become more diligent about attending upon the ordinances of God? (In his book, Bishop Job rewords this third rule so that it reads, “stay in love with God.” With all due respect to Bishop Job, I like Wesley’s wording better. “Staying in love with God,” in my mind, makes the third rule dependent upon our capacity to generate a romance with the divine. If history has taught us anything, it is that we are painfully fickle in that regard. “Attending upon the ordinances of God,” I think, is a much clearer reference to the centrality of the ordinances and spiritual disciplines through which the Holy Spirit ushers us into a transformational intimacy with the presence of God. No matter which phrase I use, however, the challenge is the same. It is the challenge of organizing my life around the spiritual disciplines instead of merely squeezing the disciplines intermittently into my pre-formed schedule and agenda.)

I am grateful for Wesley’s three rules. I am grateful for the opportunity that I have had to reflect upon them over the last couple of days. And I am grateful for my brothers and sisters in the land of blog who might just be inclined to join me in a recommitment to the life of doing no harm, doing good, and attending upon the ordinances of God.