It is time to take the “me” out of Methodism and replace it with “we”.  Somewhere we lost touch with the fact that this is God’s church and that each of us is fortunate and blessed to be allowed to be a part of it.  The church does not exist to serve our individual needs.  It doesn’t exist to make us happy.  It doesn’t exist to make us feel good about ourselves.  It exists to do God’s work and will in the world, and we are invited to be active participants in the glorious creative miracle of God’s unfolding vision.  We have got to get over ourselves.  At the very limited extreme, church may be about “us” as a whole, but never about us merely as individuals.  The whole “me and my buddy Jesus” mentality that pervades our culture has virtually nothing to do with church, Christianity, or the Bible.  Our boiling everything down to a personal and private religion has a historical name — heresy.  It isn’t all about me — and our denomination is suffering an acute case of “me”-thodism.

Yes, it all begins with accepting invitation into a personal relationship with God.  Yes, the individual must consent.  Yes, the individual benefits.  But those are the fringe benefits.  This is similar to the baby who must be born and then gets held, fed, and changed.  While this is a good beginning, few would argue that this is the goal and purpose of birth or that this describes a mature engagement with the world.  Yet, it is where many Christians choose to stop.  Immature and dependent Christianity is the default for a growing, toxic, self-absorbed population within organized religion (not just United Methodism), and it is time to name it and change it.  A church based on personal preference, need, and expectation is no church at all.  Consider this quote from an email I received three weeks ago from someone who found out our Social Principles supported the poor and disenfranchised through the egalitarian process of collective bargaining:

I will support no church that disagrees with my personal belief in what is right. 

Wow.  Is this person going to be lonely?  Personal belief defines what is right and wrong.  This isn’t a matter of personal principles — this is a case of expecting the whole universe to flex to one’s individual will.  Can you say “narcissism?”  The Holy Spirit works through the body of Christ — through the fellowship, through the community, through the cloud of witnesses.  When we make religion the manifestation of the personal preferences of the individual we are in deep trouble.  And were this an isolated problem, we could ignore it, but it isn’t.  We have individuals who want to call the shots.  Any disagreement leads to dissolution.  Here is another quote that illustrates the modern problem:

A church has one chance – one chance – to prove to me that it is worth being part of.  The first time it disagrees with me, I am gone.  If the church doesn’t believe what I believe, it isn’t worth my time.

 My time.  Disagrees with me.  What I believe.  Hmmm.  Where in the world did we ever come to a place that we think this is appropriate,valid, or mature?  And you know what?  Pastors act exactly the same way!  Jesus wept.  There are as many egotistical narcissists on the clergy side as the laity.  Don’t believe me?  Here’s a quote from a pastor from a few year’s back:

I am telling my congregation not to pay apportionments — the liberals are wasting the money on things I believe are evil and stupid.  I am encouraging them to save for the future.  If I can talk them into it, we will break from the Methodist Church and become independent.  I will lead this church until I retire.

Yikes!  Me, my church, I, I, I, me, me, me.  Does anyone actually believe this is what God had in mind for the church?  When the church is about us, it simply isn’t the church.  It is a pathetic parody of what the church should be.  When individuals — clergy or laity — define the church in terms of what they want, what they believe, what they expect, it is a horrendous bastardization of something good and holy.  It is, in the classic Hebrew sense, “evil.”  Those who hate and call it love, those who judge and call it righteousness, those who create conflict and call it faithfulness are destroying what Christ came to create.  Together, we as the true Christian community, work out OUR salvation with fear and trembling.  We look to the grace of God to define us, not the narrow-minded selfishness of a few Puritanical malcontents.  We live into the shared vision of the whole body, not the stylized reductionism of a disenfranchised minority.  “We” are not “either/or.”  “We” are not conservative or liberal.  “We” are not progressive or cautious.  “We” are not inclusive or exclusive.  “We” are not confessing or reconciling.  “We” are God’s children, entrusted with the sacred task of finding out how to live together in love, grace, harmony, and compassion.  What you or I want is of insignificant account when compared with what God is calling us to.

Again, I say, we need to get over ourselves.  Let us commit to allow God back into our churches.  Let us act as if we believe that God is love and that we are the body of Christ together.  Let’s stop looking for ways to alienate and disenfranchise one another, and instead, let us witness to the healing grace of God to a broken and contentious world.  Please?

25 replies

  1. We are a postmodern society (especially in the West), so there’s no “commensurate” authority we can agree upon, all unities are suspect; hence these debates go round and round.

    However, we long for a unifying royalty, a monarch that can’t be divided. There’s one One like that, and we will see him again. Only then will every eye recognize and every knee bow in surrender.

  2. Coming from a communal culture (Filipino), this is a very affirming article. The connectional polity of Methodism could have been an antidote for the highly individualistic US society. Yet, even churches succumb to ‘me’ mentality.

  3. There’s no particular virtue or wisdom or safety in the collective unless the “we” is fully devoted to the “One” Jesus Christ.

  4. Well said, James-Michael. Again, the main point or essence of the article is good. WE shouldn’t be focused on “my buddy Jesus.” Yet the very issue i have had with denominations, for example, is that they seem to me to be a collective “I”, and not a “we.” I other words, denominations are, in my opinion, people who agree with EACH OTHER INDIVIDUALLY, not with scripture necessarily (though of course many are convicted by what they see in scripture) and who get together based upon that agreement. But how can that be avoided in choosing a denomination? How can one’s “personal convictions” be avoided in this decision? Surely James-Michael chooses to be a Methodist because as best as he sees, the doctrines of Methodism are closest to truth (IF NOT THE TRUTH.) Of course James-Michael can and has spoken for himself concerning his choice of denomination. Yet what about MY conviction AGAINST denominations? When and how do I draw the line between MY convictions verses the collective? I am PERSONALLY convicted, cut to the heart, about choosing a “denomination.” I feel as if I am going against MY conscience in accepting what I see as the very division that Paul spoke against in the first Chapter of First Corinthians. So what am i to do? Accept what the many say about denominations, or be true to my convictions? How are my individual convictions AGAINST denominations less valid than the collective conviction FOR denominations, when both “I,” and “they” have scriptural reasons for and against denominations?

    • Denomination is not synonymous with the Holy Spirit informed church. Beyond “love God, love neighbor, together” a little anarchy could be a good thing.

  5. “WE” need to think outside the box known as the church. It is more than that, much more. “we” are not called to serve “me”, but to serve God. There is only one way to do that and it is all about “Them”.

  6. I don’t necessarily disagree with the main point you are putting forth…but it seems somewhat simplistic. For instance, when IS it appropriate to stand upon one’s convictions–even when it means opposing the “WE”? In other words, this same line of argument could’ve been directed against Bonhoeffer and the Confessing Churches by the German Church.

    Likewise, Wesley HIMSELF engaged in a certain degree of “ME” when he went against the “WE” of the Church of England in appointing Bishops and allowing lay-preaching.

    Or in Scripture, Peter was preserving the “WE” of the original Apostolic church in Jerusalem by not eating with gentiles when Jerusalem believers were around (presumably in order to not offend them…thus preserving the greater status quo)…yet Paul openly decided to take a pretty “ME” approach in opposing him to his face–and then telling the Galatians Christians what “he” did. In other words, even Inspired Scripture contains “ME” moments when the “WE” are out of step with the Spirit.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s