Secularization and the Collapse of Empire

Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Mission Theologian at the General Board of Global Ministries. The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott's own and do not reflect in any way the official position of Global Ministries.

Within the sociology of religion, the secularization thesis states that religion becomes a less significant part of societies and individual lives as history progresses. The evolution of religion in Europe in the past century has been the main evidence cited in support of this theory, though recent declines in religious belief and identity in the United States have injected new life into this debate.

A variety of causal mechanisms are suggested as the driving force(s) behind secularization. These include modernity broadly, the rise of science and de-mythologizing of people's worldviews, urbanization, religious and social pluralization, the rise of market capitalism, an increase in individualism, and others. I will not rehearse the details of this debate here.

But as I've been thinking about the relationship between religion and power recently, another possibility has occurred to me: What if the process of secularization in Europe and the United States was actually related to the collapse of empire?

In this version of the theory, a decrease in collective and individual religiosity within a society is connected to a decreased sense of national power and efficacy brought on, at least in these recent cases, by the collapse of formal or informal imperial systems. In Europe and North America, there has been a lengthy and tight relationship between Christianity and government. When European empires expanded, Christianity traveled with them, though it was admittedly a complicated relationship. Given that sustained history of connection, we should not be surprised, then, if a decline in imperial power should have implications for the religion which for so long had been connected to it.

This explanation would make sense of the timing of secularization in most of Europe (1950s and 1960s) and its later onset in the United States (2000s and 2010s), despite similar levels of modernization on other scales. It would also explain the greater resilience of religion in Eastern Europe (which had lower participation in the age of imperialism) than in Western Europe, though there are certainly individual outliers, such as the Czech Republic.

Moreover, this explanation might account for the different trajectories in the United States between mainline Protestants and Catholics, on the one hand, and evangelical Protestants, on the other, given that mainline Protestants and Catholics were impacted by post-colonial critiques much earlier than evangelical Protestants, who were forced to reckon with the United States' changed role in the world more significantly only after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. It also could explain differences between white and non-white religiosity. The religiosity of white Americans, who have been the primary beneficiaries of American empire, has declined faster than that of people of color, who have been farther from the seats of American imperial power.

This explanation also fits with general impressions I have about the difficulty that American Methodism has with providing a theological accounting of failure of any type and the difficulties that British Methodism has faced in providing an accounting for Britain's changed role in the world since the 1960s. In both cases, a loss of confidence seems to be both cause and effect of membership decline.

This thesis (and secularization theory in general) may well be incorrect. I have not done extensive research to substantiate it. But if there is at least a kernal of truth in it, it has several implications for the fields of missiology and World Christianity.

First, the amount of research that missiologists have done on the relationship between Christianity and empire makes them well-prepared to investigate this connection. While most of this research has looked at the relationships as they have played out in imperial territories, there is more of this story to be written about the relationship between Christianity and imperial power in imperial metropoles, and mission historians could easily be the ones to write it.

Second, if secularization is caused by the relationship between Christianity and secular power and declines in that secular power, rather than modernization or other factors, that would give scholars of World Christianity curious or concerned about the future of Christianity outside of Europe and North America a new set of indicators to pay attention to.

Rather than wondering whether economic development will undercut religious belief, this thesis would lead scholars to pay more attention to the relationship between Christian groups and local political power and the power trajectories of nations. In many cases where Christianity is far from political power, there should be little concern about secularization. Furthermore, even when Christianity is proximate to political power, but that power is not waning, Christianity should (at least for the time being) be unaffected.

Finally, such a connection would give missiologists another consideration in setting evangelistic strategy as it relates to proximity to secular power. The proper relationship between Christianity and societal elites has been a debate for hundreds of years within mission circles, with pros and cons enumerated on both sides. This thesis would, however, suggest that those "who take the sword will perish by the sword."

Understading the status of theology at Africa University

Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Director of Mission Theology at the General Board of Global Ministries. The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott's own and do not reflect in any way the official position of Global Ministries.

The African College of United Methodist Bishops, meeting at Africa University Sept. 3-9, has asked Africa University to reconsider a 2016 restructure that merged the Faculty of Theology with Faculties in education, humanities, and the social sciences to create a new College of Humanities. The faculties of theology and education were two of the three founding faculties, or schools, within the university, along with agriculture.

This request by the bishops continues a controversy about this restructuring plan and what it says about the status and role of theology at Africa University (AU), The United Methodist Church's premier church-affiliated school in Africa. The reorganization has been criticized since it was announced. Graduates of the program, faculty, and students have expressed concern that the reorganization de-emphasizes theology, which they see as a critically important subject area for a church-related institution. The reorganization has coincided with a drop in theology enrollment and a significant decline in the number of theology faculty at AU.

Africa University was created by action of General Conference in 1992. Thus, it recently celebrated its 25th anniversary with a celebration that drew United Methodists from around the world. The university was conceived to help education United Methodists (and others) throughout the continent, and United Methodists have indeed been a key part of the university's student and faculty bodies.

Moreover, United Methodists have been critical financial supporters throughout the university's history. AU is supported by one of seven church-wide service funds underwritten by apportionment dollars. Additional church support continues today with the Campaign for Africa University, a four-year initiative launched in 2016 to raise $50 million for the institution's endowment. Yet the church is not the university's only financial source, and non-church support has been on the rise.

With that context in mind, there are at least three different ways of reading this reorganization and the resulting conflict at Africa University.

First, there is the view of the bishops and the critics of the reorganization, who see it as a church-birthed and church-sponsored institution backing down on a key commitment to the church - to provide theological education. Such a perspective could even detect in this reorganization the beginning of the secularization of AU, a path many Methodist-founded colleges in the United States went down historically.

Second, there is the view of the AU administration, which has presented the reorganization as a financial and logistical necessity. AU is the size of a small liberal arts college in the US. Prior to the reorganization, it had seven academic deans, one for each college, which is a top-heavy structure for that size of school. Enrollment in the theology faculty had declined; hence, according to the administration, the move was economically justified.

There is, however, a third way of reading these events not put forward by either side, which is to see it as a reflection of the changing dynamics of United Methodist higher education in Africa. While there are important distinctions between baccalaureate and master's level degrees provided, the number of United Methodist schools other than AU offering theological education in Africa has grown substantially since AU was founded. General Conference has recognized this development and approved money since 2008 to support the growth of such schools. The question, though, is whether these schools' success comes at the expense of AU, or whether a growing number of United Methodists on the continent and growing demand for theological education can increase the pool of resources and students such that all can prosper. Accordingly, the fates of AU and the other schools raise important questions about contextualization, centralization, and the nature of collaboration.

Whichever of these three interpretations one takes, this story line will be one to continue to watch, since it is directly tied to how both Africans and Americans see United Methodism in Africa.

Coming to terms with numeric decline in the American UMC

Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Assistant Professor of Religion and Pieper Chair of Servant Leadership at Ripon College.

As I wrote about last week, the latest iteration of Vital Congregations data were released last month. They show growth in some faithful practices among American United Methodists, but declines in the production of new members. Combined with the death and other losses of existing members, this struggle with producing new members contributes to a pattern of numeric decline among American United Methodism that continues a decades-long trend in place since the formation of the denomination through merger in 1968.

I also indicated that this year's numbers have also perpetuated another long-term trend among American United Methodists: the attempt to interpret and make sense of the numeric data. Some of these interpretations anxiously see this trend as a crisis in the denomination. Anxiety might be counter-productive, but even those interpretations that identify an impending crisis contain a belief that is common to most United Methodist interpretations of our American decline: the belief that there is something we can do to reverse it.

The solutions of what we should do to reverse American United Methodist numeric decline vary. Perhaps it is using metrics to focus on vitality. Perhaps it is reorganizing budgets, boards, and agencies. Perhaps it is continuing to emphasize a biblical rejection of homosexuality. Perhaps it is ending the oppression and exclusion of the LGBT community. All of these solutions to American United Methodist decline, varied as they may be, share the belief that American United Methodists can reverse their fate.

That may not, however, be true, at least in the foreseeable future.

If United Methodism was declining while most other churches prospered, that would be an indicator that we suffered from some peculiar dysfunction that, theoretically, could be remedied to produce turnaround.

Yet that's not the case. Mainline Christianity has been in numeric decline for the last half century, and within the last decade, American Christianity as a whole, including evangelical Christianity and Catholicism, has been in numeric decline. There are a few exceptions to the rule, but the general trend is clear, especially for all of the largest denominations in the country. Moreover, because of the generational dynamics of religious change in the United States, that trend will probably continue and even accelerate in the next couple of decades.

It's always possible that the general trend could reverse itself. Following the upward membership trend of the 1950s, few mainline churches in 1960 expected the sort of membership decline that would set in by the end of the decade. As they say in the stock market, past trends do not always determine future results. We might be surprised by a turnaround, and I pray we are.

Moreover, even if we agree that further numeric decline over the next couple of decades is inevitable for the American UMC, that doesn't excuse us from living out our denominational mission to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. We are still called to share our faith through evangelism, to support each other in pursing lives of holiness, and to pass on our faith to future generations. It's possible, too, that carrying out these tasks well will affect the rate at which the UMC experiences membership decline in the US, perhaps significantly decreasing it.

Still, it seems a reasonable conjecture to predict that, no matter how faithful we are, the number of American United Methodists will continue to drop for the foreseeable future. That will strike many as bad news, though it needn't be seen a sign of lack of faithfulness on our part or on God's. While I, too, mourn the loss of faithful United Methodists, I also think such a situation can be a time for prayerful learning as a denomination. It should prompt us to ask two very important questions about our collective life:

1. How do we become a more global denomination in the face of shrinking demographics and (eventually) resources in the historic American base of the denomination?

2. How do we preserve the ethos and values of our current model of structures and programs even when we are no longer able to preserve all of those individual structures and programs?

These questions are what leadership expert Ronald Heifetz would call "adaptive challenges," which means there aren't easy answers. Yet if we're willing to engage them, we may just find that even numeric decline can be a profound time of learning about and communion with God for American United Methodists.

A parallel with the physical declines that precede the death of individuals may be reassuring. While American have a hard time confronting death, God still loves the dying, and the dying process can be a time of deep meaning for those going through it. It used to be a mark of a good Methodist to die well, strong in their faith. As John Wesley said on his own deathbed, "Best of all, God is with us."

Part of what enabled those faithful deaths was a strong assurance in that central Christian truth: Death is not the end. God promises life after death. May we believe that for ourselves, and may we believe that for our church.

William Payne: Culture clashes, secularism, and the LGBT debate in the global UMC

Today's blog post is written by Dr. William Payne.  Dr. Payne is the Harlan & Wilma Hollewell Professor of Evangelism and World Missions and Director of Chaplaincy Studies at Ashland Theological Seminary.

In the 1980s Charles W. Ferguson argued that Methodism is America in microcosm.[1] In a similar fashion, I have argued that American Methodism has always been characterized by regional identities and that it is essentially a regionally-based denomination.[2] Specifically, via a contextualization process, American Methodism adapted the genius of Methodism to its various locations without compromising the heart of Methodism. In the process, it became an American tradition that has greatly influenced American culture even as it has been swayed by American culture.

Today, United Methodist regionalism conflicts with the national identity to which it aspires. Specifically, the growing hegemony of American secularism poses a challenge that highlights regionalism and questions whether the denomination can maintain its national unity. If the UMC decides to emphasize its national identity over its regional character, it must choose between adapting to the secular culture by jettisoning aspects of its tradition or rejecting aspects of secular culture. Both options pose a very real potential of alienating significant sectors of the US population.

Clearly, ideological secularism does not have as firm of a grip on the South from Texas to Virginia, as it does on other parts of the US connection. That is one reason why southern jurisdictions continue to affirm the language of the Discipline on homosexuality and same-sex marriage. In fact, many southern evangelicals want the UMC to become a bulwark against the rising tide of secularism. In their vision, the UMC can save society from itself by remaining committed to “biblical” faith. Other regions of the UMC have made peace with secularism and want to become more “relevant” by affirming the cultural values of the majority population in the regions where they exist.

The fight for the heart and soul of the UMC also extends to the Central Conferences. Like the various regions in the US connection, they also reflect the values and culture of their discrete locations. According to a 2013 Pew Report entitled “The Global Divide on Homosexuality: Greater Acceptance in More Secular and Affluent Countries,” Western Europe, North American, and South America largely affirm gay rights. On the other hand, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia strongly reject gay rights and the normalization of homosexual behavior in society. Due to the location of the Central Conferences, the UMC can anticipate that global United Methodism will not follow the lead of the US connection on the issue of gay rights.

In an effort to explain the global divergence, the Pew report makes a significant observation that highlights the encounter between African traditional society and western secular society:

There is a strong relationship between a country’s religiosity and opinions about homosexuality. There is far less acceptance of homosexuality in countries where religion is central to people’s lives – measured by whether they consider religion to be very important, whether they believe it is necessary to believe in God in order to be moral, and whether they pray at least once a day.

If the Pew report is correct, the homosexual debate should be viewed through the larger lens of a rising secularism that diminishes the influence of religion on society. At the deepest level, the confrontation reflects a clash of cultures. A recent AP report illustrates this point. Vice President Biden and the US administration stated that gay rights must take precedence over culture. In the article, Biden declares that “protecting gay rights is a defining mark of a civilized nation and must trump national cultures and social traditions.” One should assume that he includes deeply held religious convictions under social traditions. He also implies that African nations and American evangelicals that do not support gay rights are not civilized. He avows that the US will use diplomatic coercion and economic incentives to impose its gay rights agenda on African nations. For Biden, “civilize” means to become like and acquiesce to the values of the secular West. It also means that the West arrogates the authority to unilaterally determine what constitutes inviolate human rights even when there is no global consensus or historical precedent. Not surprisingly, African societies who have lived under the political, economic, militaristic, and theological domination of the West are actively pushing back against this ideological imperialism in an attempt to regain and/or reaffirm their native cultures.

Regardless of what happens within the American connection, I hope that American UMs will not mimic the vitriolic tone of Biden. Yes, proponents on both sides of this issue have gone the way of rancor and antipathy. At times the soliloquies have reflected disdain. In regards to global United Methodism, I have heard fellow UMs lament, “If it weren’t for the Central Conferences, the UMC would be a gay affirming denomination.” Others have suggested that the Central Conferences should not have equal representation at General Conference because they are not theologically adept. Such sentiment is unfortunate and not helpful in discerning the voice of God or maintaining the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. In fact, it might be good if American UMs actually stopped being paternalistic long enough to hear the African critique of secularism, individualism, materialism, and permissive values related to human sexuality. After all, a global church should do theology in the context of the global community without disparaging any part of the connection.

---

[1] Charles W. Ferguson, Methodists and the Making of America. (Austin, TX: Eakin Press, 1983).

[2] William P. Payne, American Methodism: Past and Future Growth. (Lexington, KY: Emeth Press, 2013).