“THE DECLINE IN THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH.”
In the Christian Advocate of April 24, is an article by a contributor, touching the cause or causes of the decline in the Methodist Church. Much of what he says is of interest to more people than those of that particular church; for the evils mentioned are not at all peculiar to that church. We, therefore, present the main portion of it for the benefit of the readers of the REVIEW. It answers well to the sermon in this paper:— I have been a member of the Methodist Episcopal Church for sixty-five years, and my memory goes back several years further. I have witnessed its wonderful growth and prosperity, and have been an active worker as a layman in the cause for the whole period. I have thoughtfully noted the serious changes that have taken place among the ministry and the laity in the last few years, and anticipated the coming of evil days. It seems there has been a decline in the membership the last year. Is it possible the church has passed its zenith of prosperity, and is now going into the decline and senility of old age? We should all, ministers and laymen, solemnly pause, and seriously inquire, What causes have operated to weaken our strength and arrest our onward march? The bishop’s address contained some excellent things; but while reading it, I thought it touched with a too gentle hand the main causes of the decline. In my judgment the paramount cause of the decline was the loss of the revival spirit in the church; and this was the result of two causes: first, worldliness in the laity; and second, lack of spirituality in the ministry. I say the loss of the revival spirit; it is more than a decline. The old revival spirit has gone out of fashion—is abandoned—lost. The growth of the church was chiefly through protracted revival meetings, of heart-preaching,—the soul of the preacher all on fire, intensely earnest for the awakening and conversion of sinners, and the building up of the church. . . . Now how is it?—The unconverted join, scarcely hear a word about conversion, and never have any personal religious experience. What Jesus said to Nicodemus is forgotten—the new birth is seldom referred to in the pulpit. Why is all this?—Because so many have joined the church who are satisfied with being members of the church without experiencing the new birth or having any personal religious experience. They are very respectable people, generally of wealthy and fashionable families. They participate in the fashionable amusements of the day, frequent theaters, operas, etc. They do not want to hear from the pulpit the plain old gospel. They want a fine church, select choir, good society. The preacher must give them nice, pleasing sermons on such themes as do not touch their daily life or intimate they are not all good Christians. As they pay the preacher well, he gratifies them, and is perfectly happy. This worldly spirit—conformity to the world—has gone so far that there is no difference between church members and respectable people who are not church members. In all our wealthy societies class meetings are unknown, love feasts have nearly died out, prayer meetings are slimly attended, and there are no experience meetings. The energies of the church, for some years, have been directed to the building of fine churches, and securing the attendance of wealthy men. I do not object to clean, neat, beautiful churches; they should all be so. I do not object to rich men and families joining the church; I wish there were more of them. What I mean is, that the worldly spirit,—conformity to the world,—which has crept into the church (and for which the preachers are mainly responsible), has extinguished the revival spirit. Revivals now mean simply gathering in names. John Wesley was something of a prophet. He said, “Let all our churches be plain, and not more expensive than absolutely unavoidable; otherwise the necessity of raising money will make rich men necessary to us; but if so, we must be dependent on them; yea, and governed by them; and then farewell to Methodist discipline, if not doctrine, too.” This was in our Discipline from 1784 to 1872. It was about that latter date when our church started on its worldly career. The great revivalists in our church, from the start to the present time, the men who made the great Methodist Episcopal Church, began their ministry with a common education. Some few were graduates of colleges, but not one a graduate of a theological school. I believe in a good education and an educated ministry. But I would have as my preacher a man of common school education, if full of the Holy Spirit, rather than the most highly educated and talented preacher with no personal piety. I have recently been reading about the teachings of some in our theological schools. If this is the character of all, I could heartily wish they would all suffer the same fate as Cokesbury College. I have wondered at the lack of spirituality in many of our ministers. I shall wonder no longer. They have caught the spirit of the “higher criticism.” They do not believe in one half the Old Testament, and give an interpretation to the New that harmonizes it with Unitarianism. Preaching, with them, is merely a vocation, a means of earning a livelihood. . . . How a minister of our church who entertains these views can remain in the church is a mystery to me. . . . A theological school which teaches young ministers to doubt the inspiration of the Scriptures, to disbelieve in many parts of the Bible, and to question the essential Divinity of Christ, is no school for a Methodist. Such schools will make the Methodist Episcopal Church only an ornamental corpse, like the Protestant Episcopal Church. I hope the next General Conference will take such action as will require all our theological schools to teach Methodist doctrine, or else free the church from them. The boasted claim of “higher scholarship” is only the death knell to Methodism.