Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Eric Folkerth's avatar

You're primary thesis is 100% correct, and an observation I've been noting privately to folks for more than 20 years...as "non-denominationalism" rises. Thanks for backing it with data.

American's don't trust "institutions," period. This, imho, has been part of broad anti-insitution and anti-expert movement over the past fifty years.

Songwriter David Wilcox made a wry observation in the late 90s, that the fastest growing musicial genre at the time was "Alternative."

Nobody wanted to be part of the traditional genres...everybody wanted to be edgy and unique. Of course, if everyone is unique, than no one is. And everything's just "Alternative," or "Non-denominational."

The rise of these things are no accidentally parallel.

I would refer you to a now more than 20-year-old book by Ethicist William May, called "Beleaguered Rulers,"

https://www.amazon.com/Beleaguered-Rulers-Public-Obligation-Professional/dp/066422671X

The book posits that among eight "professions" anyone attempting to lead "insitiutions was feeling beset from all sides, and increasingly unable to function...certainly not a with a sense that they were working for the "common good."

Take government as another example parallel to this movement within the Church...Folks won't like this, but it's true...from the time that Reagan first said, "Government is the problem," faith in everybody from dog catchers to presidents has been plummeting.

But, he wasn't alone...folks on the right AND left have been distrustful of "experts" and believers in "self help" ever since.

Here's the problem, though: Many of these messages (right and left) do not PUSH people to confront their own shadow selves, nor push them to really unpack the harder parts of being human.

One of my church members, and excellent historian, Andrew McGregor's recent Substack speaks on this very topic:

"Solidarity seems harder to find today. In our contemporary moment, pundits talk about the epidemic of loneliness, the lack of third-spaces, and face-to-face interpersonal engagement. Similarly, I recall a pervasive ethic of edgy, non-conformity in my youth. And before that we had the so-called selfish, consumptive “me generation.” Perhaps something has changed in us. For at least three or four generations, we’ve been discouraged to come together, divided by technology, cliques, rivalries, and self-interest. We’ve certainly lost some of our faith in humanity, and become more cynical about our ability to effect change. I can’t help but think that this is intentional, a cultural strategy to hamper coalition building. It has created what I see as a type of “selfish-citizenship,” that has made us skeptical, suspicious, and quick to disengage from others. We now search for peace in isolation rather than our collective emancipation."

https://open.substack.com/pub/amcgregor/p/re-reading-and-reflecting-bayard?r=9i0xo&selection=609df29c-59b9-4bbe-a83a-08cbcaf34f4f&utm_campaign=post-share-selection&utm_medium=web

Finally, I must rise to defend our United Methodists, and suggest there's more to our "highest level of interpersonal trust."

Because, no, I don't think that it *only* do to education and income.

I am 100% convinced it's because a primary vision of being United Methodist is what we call "The Connection."

We use this term proudly, to refer to both the system itself, and the members OF the system in their more interpersonal relationships to each other.

As you know, we move our pastors around...which means that active pastors and lay folks get to know each other, as we "connect" with each other.

Point being: Our TRUST is built-in to the system. And over this same period of declining trust in instituations, as you note: our trust reminds highest.

Again, I'm 100% confident some of this must also be attributed to this specific part of our institution: Seeing our churches, schools, hospitals, mission work, etc...as all of what we call "The Connection."

The urging of institutional trust...and an also essential respect for those who "think differently" is baked in to our UM history and the system itself.

IMHO, it's also part of how we weathered the attack from within of those who recently wanted to break us apart.

Yes. 1/4 of UM churches did indeed leave to form a new denomination. But I'm 100% convinced that we came through this *because* of a bed-rock "connection" and trust between people on a broad theological spectrum. Progressives, Moderates and yes even Conservatives chose to *stay* because of the inherent trust that had been banked in each other, over decades.

IMHO, that could position us well to help lead hard cultural conversations across political and theological divides as we move forward in America. We are already connected to each other...rural/urban...progressive/conservative...and we could help leaven the connections that are so deeply frayed right now.

But... It also probably also means we won't grow dramatically. Because that hard work wouldn't be "popular" work.

But that interpersonal trust you're reading...it's structural, not just due to education, etc...

Expand full comment
Robin Jester Wootton's avatar

It really is fascinating to watch the ways in which "non-denoms" have shifted because it was always a well known joke in Church Planting circles (which I was in for over 15 years) that nondenominational really just meant Baptist but trying to be hip. Every church planter I knew who was "nondenominational" were really just former Baptists and the divide between SBC and other forms was super interesting as well. When you'd read through their church's Belief Statements, you'd find an awful lot of overlap with every other baptist church in town more or. less. Isn't that the Whole Deal of Acts 29 for example? Non denom but mostly pretty conservative baptist/presbyterian and usually very reformed?

Expand full comment
46 more comments...

No posts