A renaissance of spiritual vitality has begun to infect some major denominations at the grassroots and is slowly spreading upward.
There is a growing orthodox presence and influence in major denominations today, but many evangelicals seem to be unaware of it. The liberal momentum has halted, and dynamic ministries are developing in many churches. It is a new day.
Of course, theological liberals dominate denominational structures, and nonevangelicals almost completely control official schools. The emphases and programs of the boards and agencies are usually to the left of center theologically, politically, and socially. Church school literature often fails to keep faith with a denomination’s historic doctrines. Many conservative ministers face discrimination and prejudice.
But there is an evangelical renaissance taking place within the so-called mainline denominations. Lloyd Ogilvie, senior pastor of Hollywood Presbyterian church, recently predicted that during the 1980s, the life and vigor of the parachurch movements will invade these mainline churches.
A growing percentage of ministers receive their seminary training in evangelical schools of theology. For instance, Asbury Theological Seminary, an independent Wesleyan school, now trains more pastors for the United Methodist denomination than any official denominational seminary. Fuller, Gordon-Conwell, Trinity Evangelical, and Oral Roberts schools of theology are growing dramatically and making a notable impact on mainline churches as an increasing number of their ministerial candidates attend these institutions. Some authorities estimate that 40 percent of the ministerial candidates in the United Methodist church are currently trained outside the denominational schools. The new Episcopal seminary in Sewickley, Pennsylvania, is both an evidence of, and a contribution to, evangelical renewal in that denomination.
The type of students attending denominational schools is changing. Whereas in the 1960s seminarians were saying to their professors, “Prove to me there is a personal God!” today’s students often arrive at seminary with a Bible under their arms. Contemporary students are likely to be more conservative than those of a decade or two ago.
Theology And Experience Unite
Prior to 1950, many conservative pastors were less educated than their liberal counterparts, and they were limited to rural settings with small parishes. Often their interests were narrow and provincial. As a result, orthodox ministers were not involved in the decision-making process of the church. Their activity, frequently of their own volition, was confined to evangelism and missions; the highlight of their year was the camp meeting. The cultural pattern of the nineteenth century was considered the norm for conservative Christianity. Ethical concerns were largely limited to questions of the use of liquor and tobacco.
This is no longer the case. The advent of CHRISTIANITY TODAY in 1956 helped to bring change. The magazine represented evangelicalism at its best, and demonstrated that one could be thoroughly educated and still preach and teach a first-century faith.
Most evangelical ministers today, well trained and well read, have an intense interest in the church beyond the local parish. They occupy some of the great pulpits of America. The liberal establishment, which reigned supreme for a half-century, is at last being challenged. Though meeting strong resistance, orthodox churchmen are insisting on being involved in the decision-making process of their denominations. Their influence is being felt by the leadership in most mainline denominations.
Along with the reemergence of traditional theology, though not necessarily connected to it, stands the growing charismatic movement. I preach in many churches across America each year, and in almost every congregation there is a charismatic presence. In some it is strong. These are sincere Christians, whose zeal for evangelism and love for God’s Word stretch across denominational lines. I suspect more true ecumenism is occurring among charismatics than among any other Christians, including liberals.
Renewal Groups Organize
The United Methodist Renewal Service Fellowship is the national charismatic organization in my denomination. Over 3,000 people attended the national meeting last year in Louisville, Kentucky. There are similar movements in other mainline denominations, and these experience-centered groups will undoubtedly continue to grow.
Equally noteworthy is the emergence of highly organized, noncharismatic renewal groups. These movements, found in all mainline denominations, are often active in church politics, and are well financed from grassroots contributions. Nine such renewal groups met recently in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to formulate a strategy for working together wherever possible.
Pete Hammond of Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship has called attention to the fact that movements of evangelical protest and renewal appeared simultaneously in four large denominations around 1967. These are the Fellowship of Witness (Episcopal Church); Covenant Fellowship of Presbyterians (Presbyterian Church in the U.S. [Southern]); Presbyterians United for Biblical Concerns (United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.); and Good News, A Forum for Spiritual Christianity Within the United Methodist Church.
There is also the Presbyterian Laymen’s League and the United Church People for Biblical Witness in the United Church of Christ.
The Covenant Fellowship in the Southern Presbyterian denomination has grown to a position of strength that enabled it to defeat the adoption of a new Confession. It will probably succeed in securing evangelical representation and in meeting of evangelical conditions in future union negotiations with the northern church.
Growth of the Good News movement in the United Methodist Church is no less than spectacular. Since its beginning in 1966, it has grown into a national organization with an annual budget exceeding a half-million dollars. Once just a magazine, Good News now carries on a wide range of renewal ministries, including a regular publication to seminaries, national convocations, a mission-supported agency, and publication of undated resource materials.
Evangelical Leadership Emerges
One of the more far-sighted efforts toward effecting change among United Methodists comes from A Foundation for Theological Education (AFTE). This organization annually awards 15 John Wesley Fellowship grants to evangelical students engaged in doctoral studies. The aim of these grants, which average $7,500 per student, is to help prepare a cadre of scholars to teach in United Methodist colleges and seminaries.
In the past, the battle for the church has been lost in the graduate schools. It is there that committed young men and women, faced with the lonely and grueling ordeal of earning a Ph.D., have gradually slid into the liberal camp. To counter this pattern, AFTE hosts a “Christmas Conference” for its John Wesley fellows every December at Shakertown, Kentucky. The purpose is not to check their ongoing orthodoxy, but to provide the context in which a mutual support fellowship might develop.
The ascendance of evangelical theological leadership in the large churches was predicted by William Hordern in the 1960s. Now, denominational leaders like James I. McCord, president of Princeton Theological Seminary, are calling for a “rebuilding of the theological center” that will undoubtedly incorporate progressive and loyal evangelical ministers, who are now being appointed to study committees in increasing numbers. Young evangelical scholars are pouring out of our seminaries. Their distinctive orthodox emphasis is not only tolerated, but positively valued.
The failure of theological liberalism is one reason for the rise in orthodoxy within mainline denominations. It stands impotent against the onslaught of secularism. Contributions are fast falling behind inflation. Membership decline is a sad fact. One expert predicts that the United Methodist church, already more than a million members down from its 1968 level, will lose another 3.5 million members by the year 2000, bringing its membership rolls below 6 million. Most historic denominations are following similar patterns.
Major Denominations Have Strong Points
Faced with such troubling conditions, some evangelicals wonder whether the best course is to bail out. I think not, for several reasons. First, in spite of the problems of the mainline churches, there is within them this ground swell of scriptural Christianity.
Second, many times in the past the sovereign God has revived his church. He can do it again. Richard Lovelace reminds us, “All too often, evangelicals are unrealistically pessimistic about their growth and prepared to abandon a church that is just wakening up to the measuring of their success.” He continues, “The fictitious truism that ‘once a denomination starts downhill it never recovers’ is being steadily disproved. Those who doubt should look at the history of the Anglican church, which has blossomed again and again with new life when the tide of spiritual life rose in the people, and which has developed strong evangelical leadership again today.”
Too often evangelicals have adopted an outlook on history that predicted decline and apostasy in the nation and the church. They stopped praying and working for revival and proceeded to dig into spiritual bomb shelters and wait for the coming of Jesus. That’s a cop-out.
A third reason for staying within mainline denominations is the tremendous opportunities they provide. These churches are national in scope. Most civic and business leaders belong to them. An overwhelming majority of the members of Congress belong to them. Their colleges and seminaries dot the land. Their missionary agencies reach around the world. In short, the people and the organizational structures are there. What they need is for the dry bones to live again.
Fourth, there is pulpit freedom in mainline denominations, contrary to what evangelicals in smaller denominations and independent churches may think. In 30 years of ministry, never once have I been asked by church authorities or a congregation to alter my sermon. I have been able to lead my congregations in a distinctively evangelical emphasis that is faithful to denominational polity and tradition.
Fifth, the mainline denominations have a stability often lacking in independent churches. Local parishes within major denominations have a larger accountability, beyond their local level, and they can therefore be dominated less easily by a strong-willed personality. All of us can cite instances when independent churches, in their zeal for the gospel, have blundered in making decisions—often financial in nature—that cause harm to the larger ministry of Christ’s church.
Albeit mainline churches have organizational weaknesses, their system of accountability reduces abuse of privileges and responsibilities. Furthermore, their structure provides healthy avenues for voicing grievances, and at the same time protects the local parish from the turmoil and splits that independent churches are prone to have.
The organizational machinery in mainline churches is adequate for most stress situations. Usually a clear line of authority encourages responsibility; the denominational heritage gives guidance and a sense of roots. The body of Christ has been fragmented too much—there are no perfect churches! Evangelicals need to work within their traditions, seeking renewal and reform. Schism disrupts, alienates, and is a scandal to the gospel of Christ.
My Personal Experience
Although evangelicals in their zeal for evangelism and missions sometimes lose a sense of balance, that is another strength of mainline denominations. In the larger fellowship of mainline denominations there are corrective influences. In the earlier years of my ministry, for example, I had little appreciation for the sacraments: I emphasized the New Birth and witnessing. Dedicated Christians outside of my tradition, but within my denomination, helped my appreciation for the Lord’s Supper to mature; baptism has also taken on new significance for me.
A helpful aspect of being in a mainline denomination has been involvement with persons from different backgrounds. At one time I limited congregational singing to gospel songs and choruses, but worship in more liturgical services has become a blessing. I have learned to appreciate the great hymns of the faith. I have seen the theological shallowness of many nineteenth-century gospel songs and learned to love the hymns of Wesley, Watts, and Cowper with their great biblical truths.
I have gained in the fellowship of larger churches an appreciation for traditional liturgy and the ecumenical creeds. How easily our worship services become culturally shallow and essentially man-centered! I have found the ritual of my denomination to be Christ-centered and scripturally sound. I sense in the historic creeds a unity with believers across denominational and national lines. There is a continuity with the ancient church. Because of the influence of my denomination, worship for me is more than a Sunday morning spiritual pep rally.
The emphasis on the social dimensions of the gospel is another good thing in mainline denominations. While this sometimes has been abused and become the expression of radical secularists, it is still a legitimate concern of the faith. There are many evangelicals who have such a narrow, personalized view of the gospel that they have never seen the need for a socially prophetic voice. The mainline denominations tend to bring balance. I have become aware that there is but one gospel, with social and personal implications.
What about association with theological liberalism? Does that not require compromise of evangelicals? Not at all. I have found the presence of liberals has had positive influence on me. Because of their challenge, I must do my homework: I must reexamine my premise and make certain I am on solid ground. Liberals help to keep me intellectually honest and contribute to my growth; their hard questions force me to study the works of great theologians. Because of their witness, I have been saved from a merely provincial and cultural understanding of the faith. It is healthy to be in a denomination where everyone does not think alike.
Further, the official statements of faith of most mainline denominations are orthodox. The problem of most churches is not their doctrine, but their failure to proclaim it and remain faithful to it. It is the evangelicals within those churches who are truly loyal to the denomination. They are the ones who should continue to call for obedience to Scripture and adherence to the official doctrines of the church.
Yes, there are problems in the so-called mainline churches. But the Lord has not called us to run away from problems. He does call us to overcome them. “No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us” (Rom. 8:37).
Tremendous opportunities for service await evangelicals in the major denominations. May the Holy Spirit raise up faithful ministers and lay people and through them bring biblical renewal to these mainline churches.
