IN DEFENSE OF YOUNG METHODISTS FOR TRADITION
Joseph Cassidy
The Young Methodists for Tradition (YMFT) stand as the Methodist arm of the larger Reconquista movement, which seeks to reestablish traditional Christian doctrine to the mainline churches in the United States. It sets itself against the recent exodus of churches from the United Methodist Church and stands for a reunification of the denomination. Because of the visibility of progressive heresies in the United Methodist Church and other mainline denominations, the YMFT and the other branches of Reconquista, and most especially, Richard Ackerman(Redeemed Zoomer) himself, have received a great deal of backlash from those who left,believing themselves the sole champions of the same traditional Christian doctrine we, too,maintain. While we applaud their faithfulness to doctrinal heritage, we lament their faithlessness to their ecclesial heritage.
While it is the case that many had already abandoned this heritage longbefore they disaffiliated, that remains to be examined elsewhere. For the moment, it would be more expedient merely to explain why we now remain in the United Methodist Church, despite growing aggression against us both by the progressives, and the conservative Disaffiliates (a term here used not as an insult, but an identifier). That is the focus of this defense. There are four main points to examine: The importance of longstanding institutions, the propositional nature of disaffiliate denominations, the Protestant ethos of our tradition, and the precedence, both Biblical and historical, of a remnant posture.
Institutions build civilizations. The basis of our country is our constitution, from which stem all the institutions of our government. For better or for worse, the Congress, Supreme Court, and Presidency influence our lives and even those across the planet. The universities that form the web of higher education all over the world, from Oxford, to Harvard, to Yale, develop the minds of our young men and women. Who can deny the influence these institutions have on each generation, when all too often they act as factories of progressive ideologues and activists, setting them against their families and upbringings? Or we can consider the world’s medical institutions. Regardless of one’s agreement with their decisions, it cannot be denied that they had great influence over the actions of governments across the world during covid. It is he who controls the institutions that controls the culture. Without them, we will be relegated to a useless minority, rather than beacons of light to the world. No ship can be guided by a toppled lighthouse; it will instead be dashed to pieces against the rocks. Such lies in wait for our nation, and for all those across the world, if we elect to abandon the institutions that so influence our culture.
Continuing the question of institutions, the financial power of a united church cannot be overstated. Without funds, no charity can take place, no outreach, no influence in the local community. The United Methodist Church has already lost much of its budget due to the disaffiliations, and it will likely continue to do so. That loss greatly weakens both the United Methodist Church’s ability to help the poor in the community as well as that of the Global Methodist Church. When more churches contribute to the denomination’s treasury, more good can be done in the world, fulfilling John Wesley’s maxim: “Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as ever you can.” How are we not neglecting our calling to help those in need, if by schism we render ourselves one of them? We must preserve our financial ability to act according to our social calling. We must retain our connection to the saints of the past. We cannot think ourselves an isolated church. To leave the existing institution amounts to a denial of our historic connection to it, a rejection of every Christian that fought for its existence. Every sermon given, every assault survived, every mile on horseback to bring the Faith to the world; every dollar given, every brick laid, every steeple erected; every estate donated, every community served, every hymn written; these are what make us Methodists. To abandon that is to spit on the contribution of millions of Methodists since John Wesley’s ministry, and those of every member of the church Catholic from the ascension of Christ. In the words of William of Conches, “We are dwarves perched on the shoulders of giants.” We dwarves must therefore diligently maintain and remember the sacrifices and contributions of those giants, the saints who built our beloved church. Further, it must be understood that people are not merely propositional in their beliefs. As it holds for culture – no nation is merely a set of principles, not even in the United States.; it is necessary to have common values and practices for a culture to hold together – so too does it hold for religious institutions. A church is not just its doctrinal standards, though that should be a major, if not a primary line of demarcation for a church institution. A church is also its music, its liturgical practice, its canon laws, its celebration days. We cannot treat a church like an interchangeable political party, because it is not one.
It is quite true that a local church which teaches against Christ ought to be abandoned. But a denomination is not just one local congregation. It is everyone who lives in its theological and liturgical heritage. The Church is held together by Christ, but each expression of the church is formed by the inheritance of those saints. The historic churches have been given time to acquire that heritage. Methodism, coming from Anglicanism, has a large inheritance from that English expression of the Church catholic. We also share an inheritance from German Mennonite and Pietist groups, evangelicals who worked tirelessly to bring the Gospel to all. Shall we throw that away simply because some people became too progressive for our taste? Shall we cease to fight for our rich tradition simply because others did the same? The Young Methodists for Tradition say no. These traditions, that heritage, cannot be synthesized. They must be retrieved from history, and the institutions that we have cultivated for centuries are part of that.
Some have questioned whether the United Methodist Church is actually a historic institution to which these points even apply. After all, it was only formed in the mid-20th century. However, the historical context of its formation indicates that the United Methodist Church is the most direct, valid continuation of the older Methodist institution. The Methodist Episcopal Church was formed in 1784, led by Thomas Coke, the first Methodist Bishop. In the 1800s, the Methodist Protestant Church formed, dissenting against the episcopacy of the MEC. The question of slavery also led to other schismatic denominations being formed. Later, in 1939, The Methodist Church became the mainline Methodist Church by merging all of the denominations that had separated up to that time except the African Methodist Episcopal church. In 1968, the Methodist Church and the Evangelical United Brethren Church joined to become the UnitedMethodist Church1. From this history, it becomes clear that the United Methodist Church is the direct continuation of the historic Methodist institution formed by Thomas Coke. As such, it ought to be protected and renewed, not abandoned and restarted. We also stay because we are committed to the Protestant spirit of reform. We do not believe our churches are infallible, but that that bad decisions can be reversed.
The Protestant reformers only left when they were excommunicated, and then later, when the Catholic church declared them heretics, a decision Rome views as infallible. Our situation is nothing like that of the reformers – we are faced with a church which understands itself to be infallible, which neutralized language on a social stance, which is a decision which is exceedingly easy to reverse, with sufficient numbers. To leave only decreases our presence in the United Methodist Church, making those decisions harder to reverse. Perhaps if a doctrinal standard had changed to reflect something blatantly heretical, the disaffiliates would have had a much better case. As it stands, however, no such insurmountable opposition has been faced, and so we choose to stay. Finally, we stay because it is both Biblical and historical. Did the prophets of God in the Old Testament abandon Israel to its corruption? They did not; they stayed, and fought, and died, to bring Israel to repentance. They also failed – Israel did not repent, and they were exiled for their evil ways. So we see that even if failure were certain, we would have grounds to remain in the United Methodist Church, and fight for its restoration. In the New Testament, the Christians immediately after the ascension remained in the synagogues. They did not leave them – they sought to bring them to Christ. Only when they were forced out did they finally leave. We must follow in their footsteps. We must force the Progressives to expel us. By leaving we only empower them in the eyes of the culture. Perhaps the influence of the United Methodist Church could have been transferred to the Global Methodist Church, if only it had been formed under different circumstances.
Lastly, our laboring for the restoration of the United Methodist Church is historical. Thegreat St. Athanasius was exiled numerous times, yet he never ceased to fight for his beloved Church. And certainly, if he had not done so, if he had echoed the sentiments and actions of our modern Disaffiliates, Arianism would perhaps be the dominant theological conviction of the most powerful church institutions. Similarly, John and Charles Wesley and George Whitefield never left the Anglican church, despite its numerous shortcomings and assaults on their very lives. Surely we can withstand some rainbow-flag-waving activist ministers? There are others too numerous to recount, throughout the history of the church. We must therefore follow the examples of the saints of the past, and fight for our church family, protecting it against those who wish it harm.
For all these reasons, the Young Methodists for Tradition stand for a restoration of the United Methodist Church, rather than an abandonment of it. We must preserve its history, its influence, its charity, and its contributions to our world, and we must follow the Biblical and historical precedence found in the examples of past saints. Our consciences are bound to the Word of God, and the church of Christ. We will not waver, and we will not leave our family to the ravaging assaults of the Enemy. Here we stand; we can do no other.
References:
The United Methodist Church, Encyclopedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/topic/United-Methodist-Church