Is it accurate to recognize the UMC is pretty liberal these days?

[BryanW92]

You may be more middle of the road than I relized Bryan.

But one of the big issues is who gets to define what a liberal, conservative, or fundamentalist is? If you talk to the hard core fundies anyone who disagrees with them is a liberal even folks that you and I might see as conservative.

The terms are so relative as to be difficult to define. Also people can be both liberal and conservative at the same time. I'm fairly liberal on social issues but I'm doctrinally quite orthodox.

Hard core fundies are....well...hard core...fundies. But, both ends of the spectrum have those people. The right seems to have more because they are more willing to openly profess their beliefs. If they are fundamentalist Christians, they don't hide from the label. On the other hand, I know quite a few people who believe in almost every single plank of the CPUSA's platform, but deny that they are communists....or that they agree with the communists...or, in some cases, that communists even exist anymore!

But, people see us for what we put out on display. If we act like a fundie, they think that we're a fundie. If we act like a liberal, they think we're a liberal. So, if a person sees himself as x, but everyone seems to think that he's y, then he needs to reexamine what he thinks he is vs what he acts like.

We're quick to judge our fellow Christians that way, right? We love to tell people that they may see themselves as devout followers of Christ, but their outward actions and demeanor say otherwise. We generate guilt by asking people, "If you were charged with the crime of being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?" Of course, that question is raised in way that asks if an outsider would be able to tell if you are Christian, and we often add "it doesn't matter what the guy in the pew next to you thinks. What do those we serve think?". That's what almost every song in "Casting Crowns" catalog seems to be about!

So, when we are trying to figure out what we seem to be to the world, in faith or in politics, ask yourself not how those who agree with you see you, but how do those who don't agree with you see you.

 

[Striver]

Just some observations here from a former insider, but there are a couple things at play in what's going on with the UM.

As I grew up, I was fortunate enough to be involved in a UMC church where we had some great pastors and a close-knit family. The church always seemed to embody the UMC via media which arises out of its parent (and Wesley's Church), the Anglican Church. For instance, the local population of the UMC embodied Democrats and Republicans of all stripes. There were a range of viewpoints on the "hot button" issues like Creationism, Biblical hermeneutics, etc. and these seemed to be tolerated and coexisted without alienating someone. I had friends who were YEC and then others who were Theistic Evolution/ID/OEC.

When I attended college, I briefly intended to minor in Religious Studies. Granted, it was the state funded university, but my professor was actually the District Superintendent at the time and my own pastor knew him personally. I wasn't totally naive and knew that I would encounter some different beliefs to my typical conservative-moderate stance, but I ran into a pastor-professor who was enamored with Yahweh's consort and other beliefs which weren't a matter of simply disagreeing over authorial intent or inspiration levels. I had an Episcopalian priest who was to his right and then another professor where I did just fine. However, with this professor, I ended up with a B and could never get help or explanation with why my papers couldn't break through the B to B+ mark. No comments, no you need to look at this or work at this, just non-responses, etc.

I don't like to level accusations at someone, but IMHO this was my first brush with a fundamentalist of the left. I then realized how much of a disconnect there was between him and some others relative to congregations that I had experienced. Our church had pacifist associate pastors and things like that without issue and greatly respected/admired, but I had never encountered someone like this.

With that said, let's just take the 800 lb. gorilla in the room, gay marriage. As it seems to have setup, you have the token "liberal" side which advocates full on acceptance and affirmation. It has literally come to the point where many are asking folks for their input, and then alienating them for not fully affirming the correct position. Simply being silent is no longer enough.

On the right, it's the same deal. You must speak out wholly against gay marriage to the point that you are alienating a future or even current child of God.

It's just my anecdotal observation here, but I find the majority want a middle ground where they aren't forced to affirm gay marriage, nor are they forced to alienate brothers and sisters regardless of orientation.

In the past, it was "both and" with the (at least) implicit knowledge that we are imperfect believers. Unfortunately, it's now "either, or." This fundamentalism of a particular stripe seems to be what is tearing at the UMC, and mere Christianity in general.

 

[GraceSeeker]

But, people see us for what we put out on display. If we act like a fundie, they think that we're a fundie. If we act like a liberal, they think we're a liberal. So, if a person sees himself as x, but everyone seems to think that he's y, then he needs to reexamine what he thinks he is vs what he acts like.


So, when we are trying to figure out what we seem to be to the world, in faith or in politics, ask yourself not how those who agree with you see you, but how do those who don't agree with you see you.

This is still going to produce results that are relative.

 

[hedrick]

Why isn't the LCMS, Wesleyan Church, or CotN on your list of mainlines? Why is the ABC on that list but not the SBC?

Terms like "moderate" are in the eye of the beholder. Mainline, however, is one of the few terms that is pretty well defined, in this case by a list of specific denominations. LCMS and SBC both assert strongly the inerrancy of Scripture. Mainline churches, pretty much by definition, don't. Not that there aren't people who believe inerrancy in mainline churches. There certainly are. But no denomination that requires such belief of its members or has it as an official policy should be considered mainline. (However in some of the mainline churches -- and the UMC may be one -- published policy and de facto policy don't always agree.)

I would say that the "mainline" identity goes back to the early 20th Cent. The best-known incident was in the Presbyterian Church. The question wasn't so much what is true as what can be accepted of members and church officers. The traditionalists considered the following to be deal-breakers. No one who denied any of them could be ordained:

Inerrancy of the Scriptures
The virgin birth (and the deity of Jesus)
The doctrine of substitutionary atonement
The bodily resurrection of Jesus
The authenticity of Christ's miracles

The "Auburn Affirmation" said that there were substantial number of good theologians who rejected many of these things, and that the Church should consider permit both views. That (allowing both views) became the official one in the Presbyterian Church. In my opinion it is still a defining characteristic of the mainline churches.

I haven't been a member of the UMC for a while now, but my impression was that it was not any more conservative than the other mainline churches. The gay debate has given the impression that the UMC is more conservative, but as far as I can tell this is because of the somewhat unequal yoking of American and African conferences in a single denomination, but that this doesn't carry over (at least in the US) to other issues.

I'll leave it to actual Methodists to debate what is the right position for the UMC to take.

 

[circuitrider]

Good material hedrick!

Striver I agree with you that a lot of United Methodists would be happy with a "middle way" solution. I even know quite a few liberals/progressives who would settle for that. But the conservative wing of the UMC is right now pushing the idea of a split because they aren't interested in anything other than getting their way. Compromise, from their view, is considered a sin.

As to the "fundamentalist of the left" I know what you mean by that term but it really can confuse people. "Fundamentalism" has a specific definition and includes some specific conservative ring wing Christian beliefs. So "Fundamentalism of the left" is like saying "liberalism of the right." It is a contradiction.

If you want to point out liberalism that you think is too ridged or goes too far you might want to use terms like "radical left" or "fringe left" or something. But you can't be a fundamentalist and a liberal at the same time pretty much by definition of the terms.

 

[hedrick]

The PCUSA tried for a middle way for years. It didn't work:

* Conservatives are unwilling to be in a church that ordains or marries gays, even if their own Presbytery (think Annual Conference) doesn't.
* Liberals don't consider "we won't allow gays to marry or be ministers but we'll let you take any position you want verbally" is much of a compromise.

For better or worse, the church has to allow or not allow certain actions, and neither decision is going to be acceptable to everyone. Some people thought "local option" would be an acceptable compromise for the PCUSA, because it allows both points of view, but conservatives consider the denomination's public position to be important. I can sort of understand that, as one of the Church's obligations is in fact public witness. If you think prohibition of gay sex is critical to the Gospel, then it's hard to see how you can accept something like local option.

It turns out that we can live with differences on inerrancy as long as they're theory, but when they produce practical differences in the way the Church is run, it's a lot harder.

The other mainline churches, as far as I know, tolerate gay officers. In many of them it has resulted not so much in splits as departure of members and churches. Most of the other mainline denominations have conservative versions to which people and churches can leave. What's different about the UMC is that the official position is not as likely to change, because of the African connection. So in a split the liberal half might have to leave. In that case there isn't as obvious a place to go.

In the Presbyterian context I always thought a split would likely be a good thing. I'd much rather see two churches, both of which had coherent messages and were able to pursue their mission, rather than one that's tied up in arguments. We haven't quite achieved that, though we're closer than a few years ago. The churches that really can't stomach being in the same church with gay officers have left or are leaving.

But a split is hard because the group that's in the majority doesn't want to lose all those churches. In the PCUSA it was the liberal side that's in control, and our attitude towards churches that want to leave is, in my view, obviously unchristian. I have no reason to think that in a Church where conservatives have a bare majority things will be any better.

You'd hope Christians could do better than this. It seems to me that there is an unholy combination of an institutional desire to have as many congregations as possible in order to maintain the central organization, and a feeling (on both sides) that the other position isn't really Christian. This is, everyone agrees, *not* a good show, but no one is willing to compromise, because of course Christians don't compromise on the truth. Unfortunately this goes back to Constantine. As soon as Christians were in a legal position to persecute minorities within the Church, they did.

I'm not sure quite how this experience might help inform the UMC. Every Church is different, of course. They all have different types of organization, and their histories likely lead to slightly different mixed of viewpoints. It would be lovely if the UMC could provide a witness to the rest of the Church of how things should be done when there are disagreements. Let this be a challenge from a Presbyterian to a group of Methodists.

 

[BryanW92]

This is still going to produce results that are relative.

Yes it will but it is a more honest appraisal.

I'm right-of-center (quite a ways right of center, but far from "extreme right-wing"). I see myself that way. Other conservatives see me that way. We all pat each other on the back and tell ourselves that we're closer to the center than the right.

But, CircuitRider sees me as a fundamentalist, fairly far out there on the right wing. He helps me see that I am further out on the right than I like to think I am and definitely further out there than my right-wing friends think I am (they think I'm trending left). So, if I am honest, I can see why CR thinks the way he does about me.

The greatest lie in American politics is the existence of "the Center". Everyone tells themselves that they are near the center. The mythical "Center" are just people looking for something from both parties.

People on the Left are just as guilty of thinking of themselves as being near the center. I know pro-abortion, pro-gay, pro-tax, pro-welfare, anti-defense, anti-gun, anti-Christian people who still think of themselves as moderates. Ask them why they call themselves that and they say, "the Right is a bunch of extremists" which is a claim that no conservative postion even approaches the center.

Obviously, they didn't pay attention in statistics. Or on the teeter-totter as a child.

 

[BryanW92]

Good material hedrick!

Striver I agree with you that a lot of United Methodists would be happy with a "middle way" solution. I even know quite a few liberals/progressives who would settle for that. But the conservative wing of the UMC is right now pushing the idea of a split because they aren't interested in anything other than getting their way. Compromise, from their view, is considered a sin.

What is a compromise on the issue of gay ordination? We either do it or we don't. It's a binary solution. Would you be agreeable to having a check box that allows a congregation to refuse the appointment of a gay pastor? Neither would I. As a connected denomination, we either do this thing or we don't.

Now, if we were to change the discipline so that the UMC is a congregational, confessional church, then we could have gay pastors in the churches that want that sort of thing.

The conservative wing of the UMC is pushing for a split so that we can both get what we feel is right. You have tried for 40 years to push this agenda and you have failed. Did the left wing of the UMC ever stop trying to get their way? Have you stopped yet? It's been 10 General Conferences!! Who are the ones throwing the quadrennial tantrum over this one issue? Does the Left ever stop trying out of a desire for unity? No. They don't. The issue it too important to you and any compromise is just an invitation to bring it up four years later as a "new' goal line.

You won't stop until you get openly gay pastors in the pulpit. That is not a compromise. Or is the "compromise" merely a promise that they won't engage in gay sex right in front of us??

A split is the only equitable way to resolve this. You should be thinking more about the welfare of the congregations than the perks, benefits, seniority, and retirement plans for the clergy--and every discussion of the split always boils down to that as the main practical sticking point.

On the other hand, the local churches were paid for by the people. The congregations worked to build them and maintain them. They have served in that building for years, while pastors came and went and the DS rolled in for a visit maybe once a year and the bishop may have never set foot in it. We shouldn't have to flee from our place of worship just because someone decided that it would be progressive to celebrate sin by giving us a pastor who pridefully exposes his favorite sexual sin to the world.

 

[FireDragon76]

What it amounts to is that religion in the US has taken a huge rightward shift in the last 30 years so what used to be called middle is not called "left" or "liberal" by the right wing religious and political establishment..

American culture in general drifted rightward starting in the 70's as people became disenchanted with a liberal status quo and conservatives invested heavily in think tanks to make their message attractive. Mainline churches have not really changed that much. They are still invested in the biblical scholarship tradition that started in Germany in the 18th and 19th centuries and spread to England and the US in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Now what is happening is the culture is swinging back towards the center, but overall less interested in religion.. and that scares people on the right moreso, especially because they have played up a culture war and made a lot of secular enemies, and few friends in the mainline.

 

[hedrick]

American culture in general drifted rightward starting in the 70's as people became disenchanted with a liberal status quo and conservatives invested heavily in think tanks to make their message attractive. Mainline churches have not really changed that much. They are still invested in the biblical scholarship tradition that started in Germany in the 18th and 19th centuries and spread to England and the US in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Now what is happening is the culture is swinging back towards the center, but overall less interested in religion.. and that scares people on the right moreso, especially because they have played up a culture war and made a lot of secular enemies, and few friends in the mainline.

Maybe. But sociologists have looked at "mainline decline." What they're finding is that it is almost all explained by demographics. Mainline churches appeal mostly to an upper middle class, educated population. But that group is shrinking.

We're turning into a nation of Walmart sales clerks. And for better or worse, minimum wage people living from paycheck to paycheck view religion differently than 1970's middle managers. (Obviously I'm speaking of averages here. There are plenty of individual exceptions.)

There's one other issue to note. If you look at American Church history, you'll see that during most of the nation's history, people didn't go to Church all that much. They were all Christians, and you'd get them to revival meetings now and then, but not weekly Church. During the post WW II period, Church participation was at an all time high. It's now returning to a pattern more typical of American history. People are wringing their hands about all those who are "spiritual but not religious." But during much of American history much of the population was exactly that: They would say they're Christian, but regular participation in Church wasn't a priority for them. I do agree that the growth of people who identify themselves as agnostic or atheist is new, but one wonders how many of those 19th Cent unchurched people were effectively agnostic.

My sense is that Church participation is going to continue to decline for a while. Pentecostals and other who can produce an exciting experience will probably do the best. They're the modern equivalent of the revival meetings in the 19th Cent.

See http://www.ethicsdaily.com/church-attendance-wasnt-always-robust-in-past-cms-20169, and for more details the article he references: http://www.answers.com/topic/religion-and-religious-affiliation#ixzz2BIa3cPSb. On the basis of mainline decline on demographics, see https://sociology.sas.upenn.edu/sit....edu/files/Birth_Dearth_Christian_Century.pdf

 

[Striver]

Striver I agree with you that a lot of United Methodists would be happy with a "middle way" solution. I even know quite a few liberals/progressives who would settle for that. But the conservative wing of the UMC is right now pushing the idea of a split because they aren't interested in anything other than getting their way. Compromise, from their view, is considered a sin.

I must first admit that I am not as privy to the boots-on-ground portion of Methodism these days, but in terms of the blogosphere, it would seem that there are three camps: Liberal, Conservative and Via Media. The former two are pretty obvious, and the latter seems to be more comprised of pastors and laypersons who lean conservative in praxis, but are concerned about alienating people at the end of the day. I admit that I cannot see them with homosexual pastors, but I also don't see them screaming no and denying a gay layperson from worshipping God. In regards to the former two, I see both sides hedging their fences against a compromise.

Thus, I will continue to use the term fundamentalist. I don't do it to spite or defy anyone purposely, but as an English major, I will stick to the inherent meaning of the word. I realize that Fundamentalist has come to be associated with either Islam or the American Evangelical Right, but I'm not sure left crusader would be appreciated anymore.

My issues with radical or fringe is that the word can sometimes downplay the ubiquity of the movement, plus radical left is as stuffed with ambivalent definitions as fundamentalist is for the right.

There's one other issue to note. If you look at American Church history, you'll see that during most of the nation's history, people didn't go to Church all that much.

Indeed. I still wish I could lock down the article that gave some figures on this recently, but it's one of the reasons that I think some of the "rise of the nones" is just a little bit overplayed. I do not want to downplay people moving outside of the kingdom of God, but the stats are actually a little less alarming than we want to believe sometimes.

Like hedrick, I see where the via media doesn't seem to work. However, isn't there something that can be done rather than Christians infighting with other Christians? These court cases are doing as much damage to the perception of those outside looking in as any stance on gay marriage or lack of discipline/belief in the Church.

 

[hedrick]

Court cases are where I draw the line. We have a pretty explicit teaching from Jesus prohibiting that. What it would mean is that connectional denominations such a PCUSA and UMC would lose the ability to keep churches in the denomination by holding their property hostage. I think that's a good thing.

In the PCUSA it's a liberal establishment suing conservative churches. In the UMC it's the reverse. They are both unacceptable. (Even some liberal presbyteries would like to avoid suing churches that are trying to leave. The national leadership are forcing policies that require the presbyteries to charge ransoms to let congregations go.)

There are advantages of connectional denominations. But they shouldn't be able to force a church whose ministry is compromised by being in the denomination to remain anyway.

Interestingly, the smaller conservative Presbyterian denominations are connectional, but without the property clauses.

-----------------

Unfortunately a via media that won't allow gays to marry isn't media. It's conservative with a more friendly face but the same limitations.

The only true via media is local option, but conservative won't (and possibly can't) tolerate it, so it's not workable.

 

[FireDragon76]

We're turning into a nation of Walmart sales clerks. And for better or worse, minimum wage people living from paycheck to paycheck view religion differently than 1970's middle managers. (Obviously I'm speaking of averages here. There are plenty of individual exceptions.)

That would be an interesting idea to explore in another thread, perhaps another place on the forums. I'm specifically interested in how they view religion differently, and how their economic situation impacts their beliefs.
I'd wonder if they wouldn't be more attracted to Pentecostalism, specifically the Word-of-Faith and related movements. It does seem Pentecostalism and related groups are growing.

It's now returning to a pattern more typical of American history. People are wringing their hands about all those who are "spiritual but not religious." But during much of American history much of the population was exactly that: They would say they're Christian, but regular participation in Church wasn't a priority for them. I do agree that the growth of people who identify themselves as agnostic or atheist is new, but one wonders how many of those 19th Cent unchurched people were effectively agnostic.

That's a good point. Our school literature classes overlook this, a figure like Mark Twain was essentially an anti-theist, and his disdain for religion probably was not something he simply acquired as he became more wealthy.

What I think's different now is the anti-theism is no longer associated with being a crank or a weirdo, average people are starting to reject Christianity for new religions or no religion at all. Perhaps average people are just less willing to conform now.

 

[Striver]

I'm somewhat of a localist, so I am biased and would prefer that type of solution. However, I agree that it would be a long and hard road that would take fortitude, and that's something we American Christians aren't always known for these days.

I completely agree regarding the court cases - regardless of denomination and side. It's an atrocity to see this going to a court in any capacity. However, it's also a clear indication of what things are really about for many, and that's definitely not Jesus as Lord.

That would be an interesting idea to explore in another thread, perhaps another place on the forums. I'm specifically interested in how they view religion differently, and how their economic situation impacts their beliefs.
I'd wonder if they wouldn't be more attracted to Pentecostalism, specifically the Word-of-Faith and related movements. It does seem Pentecostalism and related groups are growing.

Shoot, that would make an interesting blog or book subject! However, start that thread, please, and I will join!

Regarding Pentecostalism, I think it offers a theology (right or wrong) of hope. This is lacking from a lot of American strands. Unfortuntely, I think it over-compensates.

What I think's different now is the anti-theism is no longer associated with being a crank or a weirdo, average people are starting to reject Christianity for new religions or no religion at all. Perhaps average people are just less willing to conform now.

I think it's more culturally acceptable, yes.

 

[hedrick]

Regarding Pentecostalism, I think it offers a theology (right or wrong) of hope. This is lacking from a lot of American strands. Unfortuntely, I think it over-compensates.

We have a big problem in the Church: Why should anyone care? It appears to me from what I know that in the middle ages and into our colonial period, people were really afraid of hell. It wasn't just that they believed it was a possibility, but fear of it was important enough to motivate them to do things. Church obviously mattered, because it was our way to avoid hell.

It's pretty clear that at this point, the fear of hell doesn't motivate many people. Not that people don't believe in hell -- most still do -- but the fear of it isn't as significant in their lives, and doesn't motivate them very much. So why should the Church now matter? One possible answer is religious experience. It gives our lives meaning, and lets us experience something beyond our stupid jobs.

Mainline churches tend not to be very good at that. For early Methodists, the Church also mentored people into a lifestyle that was both more fulfilling and led to better economic outcomes. The Church also provides a community.

But there are now other ways of achieving these goals, and there are communities around all kinds of interests. From what I can tell, the Pentecostal, and to some extent the more generic evangelical, experience may still provide something that is distinctively Christian. Worship can as well, but it has to be the right type of worship, and you have to be attuned to it. Both UMC and PCUSA worship tends to center on what can often be described as a lecture, at least much of the time.

There is currently a lot of soul-searching in the mainline community about just what the Church should be like to make a difference for people. Here's an example of some of the discussion within the PCUSA: https://www.pcusa.org/site_media/me..._presbyterian_churches_report_2012_6_5_12.pdf. (When reading this document, remember that correlation is not causation. The growing churches tend to be larger and more conservative. Thus some differences may be due to that.) The Methodist tradition may actually have better resources here than the Presbyterian one. Presbyterians historically have been very theological. Methodists have emphasized heart religion, community, and experience a bit more, though of course today many of our congregations are essentially indistinguishable.

 

[circuitrider]

What is a compromise on the issue of gay ordination? We either do it or we don't. It's a binary solution.

Only if that is the only way people look at it. The three options as I see it are 1. We keep the current rule that we don't perform same sex marriages. 2. We change the rule to allow each pastor and church to decide what they weddings they will allow/perform. 3. Same sex marriages are allowed and like the our current rule, no one will have a choice on doing them or not.

For many number 2 would be preferreable and considered a middle way.

 

[WiredSpirit]

You prove my point. Liberals think that the UMC is right of center. Conservatives think that the UMC is left of center. The "blind men and the elephant" analogy applies.

Why isn't the LCMS, Wesleyan Church, or CotN on your list of mainlines? Why is the ABC on that list but not the SBC?

If you're using the term "mainline," that refers specifically to the seven sisters (the churches listed). That's just the definition of the term. Other churches are classified as "evangelical." Many in the mainline churches would like to embrace the word evangelical as you apparently want to embrace the word mainline for your evangelical churches. When used in other contexts this would be okay, but in describing entire denominations these words take on more specific meanings.

The mainline churches have a long history of liberal activism. From my experience the thriving, most influential UMC congregations embrace this. It is a very Wesleyan attribute. With the original Methodists it goes back to the abolition of slavery in the UK and probably beyond that. Today you'll hear words and phrases like "social justice" and "missional living." Many of the evangelical churches such as the SBC formed exclusively to support the slave industry.

There are, however, small churches in our denomination that don't have the luxury of properly trained clergy and they tend to adopt the popular opinions of wherever they are located.

I don't understand how you can say the UMC is not moderate given the choices. If you think the UMC is liberal the the SBC is moderate, where do you put the actual liberal churches like the UCC and Disciples?

 

[WiredSpirit]

We have a big problem in the Church: Why should anyone care? It appears to me from what I know that in the middle ages and into our colonial period, people were really afraid of hell. It wasn't just that they believed it was a possibility, but fear of it was important enough to motivate them to do things. Church obviously mattered, because it was our way to avoid hell.

It's pretty clear that at this point, the fear of hell doesn't motivate many people. Not that people don't believe in hell -- most still do -- but the fear of it isn't as significant in their lives, and doesn't motivate them very much. So why should the Church now matter? One possible answer is religious experience. It gives our lives meaning, and lets us experience something beyond our stupid jobs.

Mainline churches tend not to be very good at that. For early Methodists, the Church also mentored people into a lifestyle that was both more fulfilling and led to better economic outcomes. The Church also provides a community.

But there are now other ways of achieving these goals, and there are communities around all kinds of interests. From what I can tell, the Pentecostal, and to some extent the more generic evangelical, experience may still provide something that is distinctively Christian. Worship can as well, but it has to be the right type of worship, and you have to be attuned to it. Both UMC and PCUSA worship tends to center on what can often be described as a lecture, at least much of the time.

There is currently a lot of soul-searching in the mainline community about just what the Church should be like to make a difference for people. Here's an example of some of the discussion within the PCUSA: https://www.pcusa.org/site_media/me..._presbyterian_churches_report_2012_6_5_12.pdf. (When reading this document, remember that correlation is not causation. The growing churches tend to be larger and more conservative. Thus some differences may be due to that.) The Methodist tradition may actually have better resources here than the Presbyterian one. Presbyterians historically have been very theological. Methodists have emphasized heart religion, community, and experience a bit more, though of course today many of our congregations are essentially indistinguishable.

From your link:

"[Growing congregations] Are no more likely to be theologically and politically conservative when compared to other churches. This finding is in contrast to what many church observers believe—that most growing churches are theologically conservative churches."
​

 

[FireDragon76]

Regarding Pentecostalism, I think it offers a theology (right or wrong) of hope. This is lacking from a lot of American strands. Unfortuntely, I think it over-compensates.

I think that's true, it could explain why it appeals to lower socio-economic status.

One criticism I would have of mainline churches is that I do not think the tolerance or liberalism are the problems: I believe the "social gospel" aspect is severely overplayed, to the point it turns off people with genuine spiritual needs. The social gospel is actually a rich man's gospel, because its about trying to assuage the conscience of the well-to-do and justify an institution, that, in many cases, has abandoned many claims to knowledge of the supernatural. Poorer people invariably need hope and direction... abstract issues like justice or fairness aren't nearly as important when you are struggling with the pressures put on your psyche by a consumerist, materialist society, combined with finite resources and opportunities.

Of course, there is a conservative version of the social Gospel- it makes the church all about upholding conventional morality and respectability, often to a greying congregation that is baffled by social changes. I've encountered this sentiment in Episcopal churches from time to time, I also assume it probably exists in more conservative mainline parishes as well.

The appeal of the Charismatic and Pentecostal church is that it emphasizes the supernatural and spiritual experiences, promising to make God not just some idea people believe in, but experienced as real. Probably an area mainline churches could counter this with their own strength, would be a more liturgical emphasis and less focus on preaching-as-lecture or exposition.

 

[BryanW92]

Only if that is the only way people look at it. The three options as I see it are 1. We keep the current rule that we don't perform same sex marriages. 2. We change the rule to allow each pastor and church to decide what they weddings they will allow/perform. 3. Same sex marriages are allowed and like the our current rule, no one will have a choice on doing them or not.

For many number 2 would be preferreable and considered a middle way.

Ordination is different from marriage. A gay marriage only affects those who get married. A gay pastor affects an entire congregation. A gay bishop affects an entire conference. What is the middle way on ordination of gays?