Methodist minds are not that open!

I’m a fan of Roger Olson’s blog, subtitled “My evangelical Arminian theological musings.” I am both evangelical and Arminian. Actually, reading his blog has helped me to realize just how strongly I identify with both those labels.

Olson is a Baptist, of the American (née Northern) persuasion, who teaches at Baylor. I am formerly Baptist, of the Southern persuasion, who has probably been shaped by that tradition more than I know. I feel some kinship with him. He seems practically Methodist to me. And I hope he wouldn’t take offense at my saying that!

Anyway, he wrote a provocative piece last week about Freemasonry, which is prevalent in the part of Texas where he lives now—and in other parts of the South where he has lived and worked.

It was a good post, and I was in the process of commenting on it, when I stumbled upon this statement of his from the comments section. He was responding to a commenter who said that he believed that Methodists in good standing could also be Masons.

Sometimes I think Methodists can be anything. In high school my daughter dated the son of a philosophy professor at a Methodist university. He (the father) was an atheist and a member in good standing of a UMC congregation! Of course, not all Methodists are like that. Many are good evangelical Christians. I just think the hierarchy of the church is too tolerant.

I responded:

United Methodist pastor here. I must object to this statement…

“In high school my daughter dated the son of a philosophy professor at a Methodist university. He (the father) was an atheist and a member in good standing of a UMC congregation! Of course, not all Methodists are like that.”

You mean “all” of us Methodists aren’t atheists? Thanks for at least giving us that! I’m sure that this professor, who was “in good standing” in a UMC congregation, didn’t volunteer to the congregation that he didn’t believe in the God that he pledged—through his membership vows—to love and serve. Otherwise, he wouldn’t be a member in good standing.

Did he lie when he took his membership vow? Did he become an atheist after becoming a member, and is it the pastor’s job then to root out the atheists in the congregation? In my experience, atheists aren’t usually active church members to begin with. Was he a member in good standing because his name was on a church roll somewhere?

I know the UMC is a mess, but it’s my mess. Sorry if I’m a bit defensive. I’m not aware that it’s messier than any other denomination.

I don’t consider myself any kind of cheerleader for the United Methodist Church. I could happily cheerlead for the Wesleyan movement in general, of which I’m a great admirer. Still, the UMC—however badly it strays from its core convictions—is my church. It’s my family, and I love it. Inasmuch as I fail to be a good Wesleyan Christian, it’s certainly not the UMC’s fault. They’ve shown me how to do it. They’ve blessed me with people who role-model it for me every day. It’s not the church’s fault that it’s too damn hard for me! I’m the one who’s afraid take the training wheels off.

Dr. Olson wrote back, and he sort of stepped in it deeper.

Some years ago the UMC embraced “theological pluralism.” I realize that wasn’t intended to allow atheism, but did it open the door to that? If I’m not mistaken, Thomas Altizer is a Methodist. Has the UMC ever disciplined him? Don’t get me wrong, I know many wonderfully evangelical Christians who are UMC. The grassroots are usually much more so than the hierarchy (with many exceptions such as William Willimon).

“Theological pluralism”! That’s an inflammatory charge! Altizer! Ugh! When I was in high school, and still a Baptist, I knew a colllege-aged Methodist who moonlighted at my church’s Sunday evening service. He felt called into ministry (through the UMC) and was considering seminaries. He said he couldn’t go to Candler at Emory (my future alma mater) because “it’s so liberal they teach ‘Christian atheism’ classes!”

I’m still not sure what “Christian atheism” is, but I don’t want any part of it! What my friend was referring to, I think, was the controversy stirred up by Thomas Altizer, an Emory professor in the Graduate Division of Religion back in the ’60s. Altizer was a proponent of something called the “Death of God” movement in theology. Please note: He was not on the faculty of the Candler School of Theology and had no connection whatsoever to the UMC (except that Emory is a UMC-affiliated university).

I replied:

I almost preemptively mentioned Altizer in my original comment because it so happens that the seminary I went to, Candler at Emory, is still dealing with fallout from that. Two important facts: Altizer was an Episcopalian, not a Methodist. He didn’t teach in the school of theology but in the graduate department [sic] of religion. (As you know, you practically have to be an atheist to teach in a graduate department of religion, don’t you? That isn’t the same thing as a theology school.)

Back in the ’60s, Methodists were outraged about Altizer. As our bishop explained at the time, he had no authority to discipline him. Candler had no authority to discipline him; he wasn’t one of its faculty. And the president of Emory defended Altizer in the interest of academic freedom (which I think is a good thing).

So where did the Methodists go wrong in that situation?

You say that the UMC at some point embraced “religious pluralism.” This is news to me. Peruse our Book of Discipline, our law book, and show me any hint of the UMC’s embracing religious pluralism. It isn’t there. In fact, I rather like this paragraph ¶ 128:

“The people of God, who are the church made visible in the world, must convince the world of the reality of the gospel or leave it unconvinced. There can be no evasion or delegation of this responsibility; the church is either faithful as a witnessing and serving community, or it loses its vitality and its impact on an unbelieving world.”

I was ordained last year as an elder after a VERY long period of testing and probation (it takes about eight years, start to finish including seminary). During that time we have to answer, in some depth, many specific questions related to the historic Christian faith and defend our answers before various boards and committees. A religious pluralist would be rooted out (unless they lie). In fact, even a true [theological] liberal Christian (whose natural affinity would be with the ECUSA or UCC), not to mention a religious pluralist, would look at the UMC and reach the exact opposite conclusion from you: the UMC is way too “conservative” when it comes to orthodox Christianity.

I know this because I was in seminary with plenty of [theological] liberals, and more than a few religious pluralists. None of them were in the UMC. (Which isn’t to say there aren’t some of them out there, of course, but you know what I mean!)

Moreover, Dr. Olson, one very important part of a Methodist seminary education is the study of Wesleyan theology. You of all people, as an outspoken Arminian, should appreciate this. We can’t get through seminary without being immersed in Wesleyan thought. We Methodist clergy tend to really love John and Charles Wesley. It’s almost weird how much we love them and talk about them!

The point is that the theology of most Methodist clergy doesn’t fall far from that tree. It’s certainly not supposed to. If it does, it isn’t the fault of the hierarchy or the process of ordination. If anything, I sense that the church is working harder to get back to its Wesleyan roots. In my experience, an appreciation of Wesleyan thought is much stronger at the clergy level than the grassroots level. Seminaries have beefed up their Wesleyan courses.

A United Methodist clergy person who is either very liberal or a true pluralist would have to withstand much cognitive dissonance on his or her path to ordination. Again, I’m not saying that it doesn’t happen sometimes. Of course it does. But it’s not because the denomination has embraced religious pluralism.

I grew up Southern Baptist. I’m well aware of the stereotypes that Baptists have of Methodists. I’m surprised that you seem to share some of them. Talk to Will Willimon some time. I don’t think I’m saying anything about the UMC that he wouldn’t agree with. I’ve met and spoken with him before, and I know two other bishops in the UMC. I’m certain that all three would strenuously disagree with your characterization. They are deeply committed to the orthodox Christian faith, and to our specific Wesleyan emphases.

But really… I know Baylor is a Baptist school, but do you not know any Methodists? I mean, not a stray Methodist academic here or there, but just good ol’ rank-and-file Methodist people? We’re really not all that bad. And maybe the point of this defense is to simply say, “We’re not nearly as bad as you think.” I wish I could say more, but I concede that we have major problems—the biggest of which is that we’re a denomination full of sinners in need of God’s grace.

We had another friendly exchange. I probably overreacted to his charge of pluralism and/or misinterpreted what he meant by it. (I was thinking of someone like John Hick, who represents an all-paths-lead-to-God kind of pluralism.) Regardless, the church has certainly not embraced theological pluralism—which isn’t to say that many Methodists aren’t heterodox or deeply confused about what they believe. It happens.

Olson, I believe, has a distorted view of Methodists because of his career in academia. That’s not a side of the church that I see very much—but, frankly, it’s also not a side of the church that is nearly as influential as he thinks. That there are scholars who are incidentally Methodist and heterodox, not to mention non-Wesleyan or non-evangelical, doesn’t surprise me. The UMC is the largest mainline denomination and has a fairly wide tent, theologically. Methodists who choose to pursue academic careers are a self-selecting group that hardly represent the denomination as a whole.

But that’s an understatement: only a tiny sliver of an already tiny minority of Methodists who feel called or compelled to work in the church choose to go into academia. Of that tiny sliver, a much smaller number do so as ordained clergy. Unless they belong to the order of elders or deacons, they are not directly accountable to the UMC in any way. They can say or do whatever they want, and the UMC has no authority to discipline them.

Besides, relative to the size of the UMC, are there really very many Methodists in academia? I went to a United Methodist seminary, after all. Outside of my Methodist concentration classes, I had exactly zero professors who were United Methodist. How is that possible? I was taught Old Testament by a Southern Baptist; New Testament by a Church of Christ Christian; the history of Christian thought by, respectively, a Roman Catholic, a Congregationalist, and a Lutheran pietist; and systematic theology by a German Lutheran pastor. I could go on, but you get the point.

I hope that the old marketing slogan “Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors” means that we’re as welcoming as any church. I hope it means that we’re less self-righteous and hypocritical than any church. I hope it means that we’re open to the possibility that we could be wrong and that we don’t have all the answers.

But I know that it doesn’t mean we’re so open-minded that our brains fall out!