Strangely Warmed

One of most basic questions that the United Methodist Church must answer is whether it is a church or a movement or an institution. An "institution" is simply the organizational form or structure that exists among groups human beings. Institutional life includes physical objects, defined relationships, formal and informal rules, social processes, resources consumed and products produced, among other things. In other words, if a corporate entity (of any sort) is a kind of person, then the institution is the "body." The institution is the "flesh and blood" of a group's existence. Movements can and do take a variety institutional forms, from formally established organizational bodies to loose associations. The church, too, can take a variety of institutional forms. But whereas movements can organized around any number of causes, the church can have only one thing at its center. And it's not the case that a church is simply a particular insta...

The survival of any denomination or congregation is not a worthy goal. I am not afraid, however, that the United Methodist Church will cease to exist anytime soon. Humanly speaking, we are a big institution with a lot of institutional inertia. The United Methodist Church will exist in some form for many years to come.  For me, the question is whether (and how) the many different understandings of Christ, the Gospel and the Church that exist within United Methodism will (or even can) each thrive under the same roof. Wesley said: I am not afraid that the people called Methodists should ever cease to exist either in Europe or America. But I am afraid lest they should only exist as a dead sect, having the form of religion without the power. And this undoubtedly will be the case, unless they hold fast both the doctrine, spirit, and discipline with which they first set out.   John Wesley, August 4, 1786, Thoughts on Methodism Simply resurrecting 18th century Wesleyan forms i...

I recently had a conversation with a United Methodist bishop from one of the central conferences, and at one point I said something like this: In the United States, some United Methodist churches largely draw their identity from 19th century American evangelicalism. Others look to the turn-of-the-century social gospel movement. Still others to the liturgical renewal movement. Some look to post-modernism in its various forms. Others try to recapture primitive Wesleyanism. I could go on. There are dozens of ways that United Methodists envision themselves. Is that the case in your conference as well? Before the bishop could answer, another American at the meeting responded by saying, "I think that diversity is who we are. That's what I love about our church" There is something to admire, I think, in the diversity that exists within United Methodism. Diversity, however, is not an identity. There has to be a center. And, I should add, there has to be a perimeter as...