I have to admit that my attitude toward the Church (in general) and the UMC (in particular) has been especially bad these days. So, maybe I'm just not seeing things straight. The fact that General Conference is meeting is bound to stir up my feelings at this point.

Somebody help me — if you can.

General Conference is meeting now to consider the future direction of our denomination. I came into the Christian faith through the ministry of a United Methodist Church in St. Clair Shores, Michigan. I was influenced by the evangelists I heard at the Simpson Park Camp-meeting, long ago. I have served as pastor of several small United Methodist congregations. I've served as a camp counselor, an Emmaus & Chrysalis Spiritual Director, coordinator for the West Michigan Conference Youth Council, a teacher of Lay Speakers, and in many other ways. At this point in time, I probably wouldn't feel at home in a church of any other denomination. I've gotten used to the ways in which the UMC operates.

But, I have a question.

Why is there a United Methodist Church? Why should there be?

The General Conference is meeting under the theme of: "A Future with Hope." But, does the world or the Church (in general) really need the UMC?  Is there a place in the plan and purpose of God for the UMC?

The mission of the Church in advancing the purposes of God in this world is far more important than the survival of any individual church or denomination. I can't believe that God cares about the survival of our ecclesiastical institutions. God cares too much about the world. God cares too much about people. There's too much darkness, too much lostness. There is too much conflict, too much hunger and oppression. There is too much spiritual and moral darkness and confusion.

The Church of Jesus Christ exists to be an influence for good in our world. “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men. You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven." (Matthew 5:13-16 NIV).

What sense is there in having a United Methodist Church anymore?

What does the word "Methodist" mean anymore? Some of us understand from history: it was an insult that people hurled at the pietistic early members of the Holy Club and the early Societies. But, they didn't back down. Instead, they started wearing the title like a badge. Yes, they were Methodists. They had a system. They had a method. And, it meant that they rose early and prayed. And it meant that they met together to sing and to pray and to hear the Word. And, it meant that they served the poor. And it meant that they fasted. And it meant that they met together for spiritual accountability. And, it meant they visited in the prisons. And, it meant that they studied to understand and follow the Scriptures. They sought to be Christians in word and deed, and not simply Christians in name. They sought to live out Scriptural Christianity, whatever that might mean for them.

But, what's a Methodist when the method is gone? The Class Meetings are no longer in living memory — notwithstanding modern attempts to somehow, in some small way, revive them again.

That's the "Methodist" part. And, the "United" part of the name remembers the Evangelical United Brethren — the traditions of Otterbein and Boehm and Albright. These are now traditions largely forgotten. They say Otterbein's preaching was so radical, they had to send him to the Americas just to get rid of him. There was no place for him in Germany. He came to the American continent with a message he refused to compromise. Yes. But, now his voice has been stilled.

Years of history and pages upon pages of doctrinal standards and statements have been replaced by an advertising slogan: "Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors."

We now tell the world we have no beliefs, no standards, nothing to give or to share. "Come to our church. There's no reason not to."

I understand that this advertising campaign has produced a more favorable attitude toward the UMC in the general population. People think well of our denomination.

Imagine we were trying to sell peanut butter. How well would we do with an advertising campaign that said: "We know some people don't like peanut butter. Well, our product doesn't taste much like peanut butter, and anybody, whoever they are, can buy our brand. Why, you don’t even have to eat it if you don’t want to." While this campaign might improve the standing of our product among people who don't like peanut butter to begin with, it's hard to believe that it would sell any.

And, the advertising campaign actually presents a falsehood. We were never designed to be an "anything goes" denomination.  Check out the many pages of Doctrinal Statements and Doctrinal Standards in the UM Discipline.

And, in the mean time, we are determined to keep playing "Fundamentalist vs. Modernist Controversy" until there's no one left to come out and play. Does the world and the church really need one more house divided against itself? If our most disliked enemies are the people of our own denomination with whom we disagree, what right does our denomination even have to exist?

The Church can only live by it's faith. It can only grow from it's particular sources of nourishment — and these sources have not changed.

Does the UMC have "A Future with Hope"? I'm sure I don't know.

But, I have a deeper question: why should it?

— Craig L. Adams