Methodist Fundamentalists and Modernists: A New Look at an Unfinished Controversy
Historiography, the study of how people record history, shows that history told by different groups amplifies how those groups understand themselves. Understanding history requires acknowledgement of multiple viewpoints.
The United Methodist Church is currently experiencing a schism. While broadly blamed on human sexuality, underneath lie disagreements about doctrine and theology. Progressive Methodists argue the church is pluralistic, lacking doctrinal boundaries. Traditionalists claim those standards indeed exist, and both groups tell the church’s history differently.
The “standard” United Methodist Church history centers on the mainline Protestant movement, its mergers, women’s ordination, racial equality, and the social gospel. This version, popular in seminaries, is only one lens. I would like to focus on another.
Between approximately 1900 and 1940, American Protestants faced a conflict known as the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy, which pitted “modernists,” with their embrace of naturalism, biblical criticism, and therapeutic spirituality, against the “fundamentalists,” who continued to hold traditional Christian doctrine and teaching. In his 1931 History of Fundamentalism, Stewart G. Cole investigated the conflict across mainline denominations, and he noticed that consistently, “conservatives directed their energies to gain control of [Protestant Christianity] for the purpose of reinstating Christian orthodoxy” (62). The modernist leadership differed from the traditional Christianity presented within local churches.
This division generally worked itself out in one of two ways. Either the entire body became modernist or the conservatives withdrew. In his work, Fundamentalism and American Culture, George Marsden commented, “Considerable groups within the major denominations identified themselves with the fundamentalist tradition, although they had now abandoned all hope of excluding the modernists” (20).
By 1930 most considered the controversy over, because, as United Methodist historian William J. McCutcheon argued, the Methodist message focused more on personal salvation than doctrinal dogma. While Presbyterians divided in 1936, the modernist Methodist leadership disregarded doctrinal disagreements to focus on reuniting the three large Methodist groups. Most historians view the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy as simply a footnote.
Yet in 1958 Bishop James H. Straughn reflected, “Methodism had but one clear-cut outstanding message. It is not so now. . . Many of our leaders do not accept the Virgin Birth . . . [and] failure to accept the biblical record, with the consequent distrust of the Bible itself . . . cuts across our entire thinking and our Christian appeal” (Inside Methodist Union, 164). Straughn’s statement, well after the 1930s, shows that while Methodism appeared modernist, underneath existed a decidedly conservative bent.
Many resources indicate that the 1930s were the end of fundamentalism within Methodism, but the controversy remains today, seen in the formation of the Global Methodist Church and the pending schism.
Defining Fundamentalism
George Marsden defined fundamentalists as, “evangelical Christians, close to the traditions of the dominant American revivalist establishment of the nineteenth century, who in the twentieth century militantly opposed both modernism in theology and the cultural changes that modernism endorsed” (5). Early fundamentalists weren’t the Bible-thumping, King-James-Version-only churches of fundamentalist Christianity today, but instead had more in common with today’s evangelicals.
James Heidinger wrote of Methodist John Alfred Faulkner (1857-1931), professor and author of Modernism and the Christian Faith, “It needs to be said that Faulkner did not consider himself a fundamentalist, but rather would have referred to himself as an orthodox believer or an essentialist” (The Rise of Theological Liberalism and the Decline of American Methodism, 20). In Stewart Cole’s 1931 work detailing the state of Fundamentalism at that time, Cole refers to the Methodist “essentialists” as fundamentalists. According to Cole’s 1931 account, “the Bible’s portraiture of holy living is the Christian’s ideal, [and] the Apostles’ Creed and the Articles [of Religion] represent the general doctrine of the church” (The History of Fundamentalism, 164).
With slight adjustment for the way that Methodists approach Scripture, focusing on the terms infallibility and authority instead of inerrancy, the classic fundamentalist five points describe the essentialist Methodist.
1. The inspiration of the Bible, and therefore its authority and infallibility
2. The virgin birth of Christ
3. The substitutionary atonement of Christ
4. The bodily resurrection of Christ
5. The historicity of the biblical miracles.
Essentialist Harold Paul Sloan wrote, “We can have no revival unless the Bishops aggressively proclaim their undeviating confidence in the deity, virgin birth and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ” (Heidinger, 43).
Methodist essentialists tried to expel modernism for years, but controversy continued.
Methodism’s “Silent Minority” (1920-1966)
Methodism’s Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy happened in stages. We have already observed the work of Faulkner, as well as Harold Paul Sloan and his Methodist League for Faith and Life, a well-organized group that influenced the 1920, 1924, and 1928 General Conferences.
They focused on the Course of Study, the route by which most became Methodist clergy. Sloan and Faulkner charged that modernists overran the Course with liberal material, and the 1920 and 1924 General Conferences included changes to ensure conformity to Methodism’s doctrinal standards.
By 1928, Sloan worked for further changes to the Course that included stronger doctrinal statements, focusing on modernists who denied the virgin birth and resurrection. Nevertheless, his efforts were voted down because of a statement by bishops issued to unify the church against “heresy hunting.”
Here, typical Methodist history generally declares the controversy over, focusing on the growth of the Methodist Church institution. However, after the 1939 merger, concern over liberal leadership returned. Bishop James Straughn wrote, “In our hymnal there are three creeds, two of them to accommodate those who do not believe in the Virgin Birth [and which are at variance with the Articles of Religion]. One might extend these paragraphs, but now is not an age of doctrinal preaching” (Inside Methodist Union, 164-65, emphasis added).
Conservatives renewed their fight, and complaints against liberalism arose from influential leaders like Robert Pierce Shuler (1880-1965), Henry Clay Morrison (1857-1942), and even missionary E. Stanley Jones (1884-1973). Meanwhile, a significant group of essentialists remained in Methodism, what H. Glen Spann called the “Great Deep,” and what Chuck Keysor called, “Methodism’s Silent Minority.”
Good News, the United Methodist Church, and Theological Pluralism (1966-1975)
Keysor’s The Christian Advocate displayed central conservative convictions. “Despite the broadness of orthodoxy’s doctrinal scope, one must examine the five fundamentals in order to understand orthodoxy’s point of view” (July 16, 1966, 10). Keysor finished, “We who are orthodox must become the unsilent majority.” His readers enthusiastically responded.
Heidinger recounted, “To his amazement, Keysor received over 200 letters and phone calls in response to his article, most of them coming from Methodist pastors!” (The Rise of Theological Liberalism, 134). Keysor’s article inspired the founding of Good News, as well as the continued battles for orthodoxy.
The 1968 General Conference brought the union of the Methodist Church with the Evangelical United Brethren (EUB). The EUB never widely embraced modernism, but Methodist conservatives were disappointed the union did not bring more moderation. Meanwhile, what Billy Abraham called “doctrinal amnesia” ruled at General Conference.
Norwood wrote in his Story of American Methodism, the “United Methodist Church belatedly began to ask itself what were its doctrinal standards. . . [and] the Methodists had persisted in the anomaly of adhering to Wesleyan doctrinal standards without knowing what those standards were” (428). He added, “not one approach but several would be encouraged, providing ‘theological pluralism’ and allowing expression of minority and other viewpoints,” (431). Another 1972 development was the insertion of “the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching” into the generally liberal Social Principles. Today this statement is significant, but then it was barely noticed.
Conservatives persevered. In 1974, Good News created a task force focused on creating a new statement of “Scriptural Christianity.” The statement, known as “The Junaluska Affirmation,” highlighted the same issues originally covered in The Fundamentals sixty years prior.
General Conference 1988 and a New Conservative Majority
The 1972 pluralistic theological statement opened the floodgates for denominational liberalism but galvanized conservatives. The leadership might have embraced liberalism, but it never took root in churches, especially those served by licensed local pastors.
In 1988, conservatives pushed a hymnal revision and new theological statement, eschewing “theological pluralism.” The 1935 hymnal was widely derided by laypeople for its elimination of traditional themes. Riley Case, in Evangelical and Methodist, writes, “The Church’s ritual [eliminated] references such as ‘redeemed by the blood,’ and learning the Apostles’ Creed . . . [was] deleted from the baptismal service” (88).
The 1988 hymnal reflected efforts to re-embrace Christ’s salvific work and contained an entire section of atonement and trinitarian hymns. John B. Cobb, professor at Claremont, complained in The Christian Century, “The era of real theological pluralism [has drawn] to an end” (“Is Theological Pluralism Dead in the UMC?” April 6, 1988, 343).
A 1988 survey showed 69% of the laity espoused conservatism, leading R. Michael Sigler to write, “While theological liberalism continues to dominate the seminaries, boards, agencies and many influential pulpits of United Methodism, United Methodists at the grassroots clearly are marching to a more conservative tune” (“Methodism Unmasked,” Good News, November-December 1990, 15). That majority voted repeatedly to maintain a traditional sexual ethic.
The new conservative majority included increasing numbers of international orthodox delegates. Conservatives gained a working majority, setting the tone for every General Conference from 1988-2016.
Human Sexuality, The Wesleyan Covenant Association, and Division
In 2003, Bishop C. Joseph Sprague faced heresy charges, accused of denying the virgin birth, the atonement, and the divinity and bodily resurrection of Jesus, claiming that those who hold tightly to these doctrines were nothing more than “fundamentalists,” or what he preferred to call “neo-literalists.” These denials echoed what essentialists had charged Borden Parker Bowne with a century prior. Like Bowne, Sprague received no punishment and charges were summarily dismissed.
General Conferences soon included protests, and in 2004 the communion chalice was shattered by demonstrators. LGBTQ candidates were ordained, and church trials for misconduct provided little or no accountability. While conservatives might have controlled the floor of General Conference, the leadership didn’t enforce the Discipline.
Progressives brought the conflict to a head at the 2016 General Conference and nearly faced a schism on the floor. Emulating 1928, Bishops calmed tensions by forming a commission to study the matter. Many progressives wanted to continue the practice of theological pluralism without enforcement of doctrinal standards. The election of theologically progressive and openly homosexual Karen Oliveto to Bishop exploded the conflict.
Subsequently, the Wesleyan Covenant Association (WCA) was founded to connect “traditional, orthodox UM churches [so they] can support and resource each other—both for ministry to our changing culture and for facing the challenges presented by a denomination that is unclear about its commitment to Scripture.” In his article, “The Dis-Uniting of Methodist Christianity,” Robert Hunt observed, “Constant fights over what they see as settled matters of doctrine and polity only increase their sense of alienation and frustration. . . This is an important reason that more than 1000 church leaders flocked to . . . the organizing meeting of the Wesleyan Covenant Association, a group that made important public statements on doctrine, but which also laid the political groundwork for pulling out of the United Methodist Church.”
While human sexuality was the catalyst for the WCA, differences in doctrine built the foundation. More than a century prior, Cole wrote that fundamentalists pressed the Board of Bishops at the 1912 General Conference to make a “declaration on the biblical question. . . Conservatives tended to make a standard doctrine of the Bible the primary norm of Methodism” (The History of Fundamentalism, 164). The WCA represents a large, well-organized group of orthodox Wesleyans, current-day Methodist essentialists, that today have an eye on separatism.
Four generations after the first Methodist essentialists and modernists clashed, rifts continue. Those who misread the current conflict and claim the division is cultural and not doctrinal are unfortunately ignoring a century of history. Those who recognize the historical impact of the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy, but claim it did not greatly affect United Methodism, equally misunderstand.
Across the history of Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy, schism often resulted. While negotiating the Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace through Separation would have created an amicable division, the postponement of General Conference and the formation of the Global Methodist Church in May 2022 has set the stage for a different ending. Conservative churches are clamoring for an exit that is quickly being closed by denominational leadership, and rancor and contention run rampant.
As the church looks to the future, the history is as important as ever.
Matthew Sichel is a doctoral student at the London School of Theology in London, England, and is a provisional Deacon in the Baltimore-Washington Conference of the United Methodist Church.