The sad reality the matter is that the UMC’s lack of inclusion of the Nicene Creed in its Doctrinal Standards does not mean that the denomination is simply neutral. United Methodism is sometimes openly hostile to the faith of the Nicene Creed. It is simply a fact that in many cases, people who come under the influence of a United Methodist bishop, United Methodist seminary, or United Methodist congregation are wooed by this influence to reject key doctrines of the Nicene Creed! 

One important divergence already seen between the two denominations emerging from the United Methodist split is contrasting approaches to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, popularly known as simply the Nicene Creed. The Global Methodist Church is committed to the historic Christian faith of the Nicene Creed, while the United Methodist Church is not committed to the Nicene Creed.
This reflects deeper differences. Of course, there are finer, less important theological questions on which faithful members of the same church can disagree. But can there be any minimal doctrinal boundaries?
As the Rev. Dr. Chappell Temple, a long-time instructor of United Methodist doctrine, history, and polity and now a Global Methodist elder, has declared, in the GMC, “there is a set of defining core beliefs,” grounded in Scripture, which denominational leaders and congregations are expected to teach.
This is simply not the case in the UMC. In United Methodism, it has become painfully obvious that there are no clear, consistent, and effective doctrinal boundaries.
Let’s be real: if you know that someone is a United Methodist, even a minister or a bishop, that tells you little to nothing about what this person actually believes.
Here is a summary of the history of this great ecumenical creed, which dates from the fourth century A.D., in a Roman Catholic magazine.
A few years ago, some helpfully nuanced analysis of John Wesley’s own relationship with historic creeds in the founding era of Methodism was offered in inter-linked blog posts by several United Methodist scholars: Joel Watts (here and especially here), David Watson, Andrew Thompson, and Kevin Watson. They challenged simplistic arguments and selective citations painting a misleading picture of the Anglican Wesley as anti-creedal.
In any case, the Global Methodist Church includes this Nicene Creed as part of its official doctrine (see ¶105 of the Transitional Book of Doctrines and Discipline). Global Methodism not only affirms distinctive theology of the Wesleyan Methodist tradition, but also stands together with Catholic, historic Protestant, and (for the most part) Eastern Orthodox churches around the world who have also affirmed this core of basic, ecumenical Christian faith for centuries. This is a deeper doctrinal unity than comparing completely separate statements of faith and making extended arguments about how there are substantial overlaps in some areas. Rather, on very core doctrine about the triune God, Global Methodism is unquestionably in alignment with the ecumenical consensus, dating from the fourth century, on the same carefully worded creedal affirmations of belief.
Despite being printed in the United Methodist Hymnal and valued by many who have been United Methodists, the Nicene Creed is actually not part of the United Methodist Doctrinal Standards. The Nicene Creed is not even explicitly mentioned anywhere in the United Methodist Book of Discipline.
UMC Discipline ¶104 lists the historic Methodist “General Rules” alongside the denomination’s official Doctrinal Standards, the latter consisting of four distinct documents:

The Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church (mainly what John Wesley abridged from the Church of England’s articles);
The Confession of Faith of the Evangelical United Brethren Church;
The Standard Sermons of John Wesley; and
John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament.

In 2015, several United Methodists who had disagreed over other denominational matters on social media came together to petition the 2016 General Conference to add the Nicene Creed to this list.
A participant in that effort noted a weakness he saw in official United Methodist doctrine: how overwhelmingly dependent it was on one fallible man alone (as awesome as John Wesley was). Before Methodism’s 1968 merger with the much smaller EUB church, Wesley was basically the main author of all of the clear Doctrinal Standards of the main part of what is now our denomination.
However, this effort went down in flames at the 2016 UMC General Conference. The three petitions to include the Nicene Creed in the United Methodist Doctrinal Standards all died in committee, rejected by super-majorities of 69 to 72 percent (see here, here, and here). Even in a relatively conservative committee in arguably the most conservative (by United Methodist standards) General Conference in history!
So the United Methodist Church’s top governing assembly was explicitly invited to include the Nicene Creed in its Doctrinal Standards, and this proposal was overwhelmingly rejected.
Among other things, this failed United Methodist effort would have countered the widespread idea that “the United Methodist Church is not a creedal church.” That claim has been made widely by United Methodist clergy for many years. It has even been made on the denomination’s official UMC.org website.
It is often unclear what exactly is meant by this statement.
I have most often heard United Methodist ministers (even a relatively conservative pastor) declare “we’re not a creedal church” as a way of shrugging off concerns raised about United Methodist leaders, even at the highest levels of spiritual authority, denying such basic doctrines as the sinlessness or actual, miraculous bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. It appears to mean, “Oh well, it’s not that big a deal for even top leaders of the United Methodist Church to use their offices to teach against core, historic Christian doctrines, and no leader in our denomination can be stopped from doing this—that’s just how things are in the UMC!”
I and others have disputed this claim, pointed out how at least on paper, the UMC has the Doctrinal Standards mentioned above, and per Discipline ¶336, all ordination candidates are supposed to be asked if they will “preach and maintain” these doctrines.
But the de facto reality of United Methodist doctrine and morals has become very different from the dead letter of the words printed in the Discipline. Even in the UMC’s arguably most conservative Midwestern annual conference, Indiana, District Superintendent Saneta Maiko sent an apparent mass email on April 27, 2022, in which among other things he declared, “I am a United Methodist because our doctrines are not mandatory for clergy to preach and maintain. I am not interested in policing doctrines but asking God to redeem people when fallen s[h]ort of God’s glory.” (emphasis added)
We must not under-estimate the profound effects of erasing even minimal doctrinal boundaries, at every level of the UMC, have come from so many ministers for many years being taught and teaching others that the UMC “is not a creedal church.”
Read More
Related Posts:

 The real story told by this data is completely missed or ignored by the report. Namely, the strong polarity represented in the data. That is, the divide between the adherents and the zealots. Both occupy relatively the same statistical positioning and they are diametrically opposed to one another in their vision for the American way of life. Each considers the other a political threat and, on this point, they are right.

Neighborly Faith has published a new study on Christian nationalism. It began making the rounds this past week. The report is branded as a “new approach,” an improved measurement. You can read the whole thing for yourself, so an exhaustive breakdown is uncalled for. There are some things worth discussing, however. Most commentary on the report has fixated on the fact that, as the Washington Times put it, “Christian nationalists may not be the demons that some claim.” Whilst that’s obviously true and there are commendable elements to the report, we shouldn’t be so easily impressed. There are deeper problems with the report’s approach, and, in the end, it misses the real narrative of the data completely—and these things are always telling a story.
Groupings in the report are as follows: Christian nationalist adherents and sympathizers, Christian spectators, pluralistic believers, and zealous separationists. Of course, there is an undecided category as well. The percentage breakdown is a fairly even split, 11%, 19%, 18%, 19%, 17%, and 16%, respectively.
Everything in the survey is geared toward openness, tolerance, multiculturalism, and democracy. None of these things are defined but rather assumed as normal. This conforms to the culture, we might say, and mission of Neighborly Faith which, per their website, is dedicated to interfaith dialogue in a pluralist society, the latter being the assumed baseline—that is, an assumed good.
The tenor of the report reveals the apparent audience, the concerned observer. At many points, this posture makes it hard to take the report seriously. Imagery of January 6 MAGA enthusiasts and the like fill the graphics of the document. We will return to this point of partisanship shortly, but note, for instance, that the first topic addressed after outlining the percentage breakdown is the “threat” of Christian nationalism. The first line in that explanation points out that adherents and sympathizers “generally lack the aforementioned commitments so essential to a pluralistic society.” (p. 5). And, “Naturally, CN threatens institutions, legislation, and cultural norms that protect or promote pluralism in its many forms—such as religious diversity, multiculturalism, etc.” Not exactly dispassionate, is it? That does not invalidate the data presented but it is worth noticing.
The report’s executive summary tells us that only 30% of respondents are either adherents or sympathizers to Christian nationalism. The smallest population is that of adherents. Only 11% are true believers and only 5% self-identify as Christian nationalists. The import of these stats, given the reports intended audience, is to assure everyone that Christian nationalism, as (very roughly) defined by the report is probably not a big threat, even though it contains definite threats to democracy et al.
And yet, the survey has some “surprising findings” which amount to the unexpected fact that Christian nationalists are not rabid racists and are willing to work across socio-political and religious lines for the good of society (p. 5).
We must also note the problematic and confusing style of the questions presented in the survey to the some 2000 participants. As with any survey data, there are obvious limitations inherent in any questions included. That goes with the territory and shouldn’t be overly criticized. In this case, however, the report is frustrating for its perpetuation of bad question forms.
For instance, all Christian nationalist surveys to date fixate on the activity of federal government, e.g., “The federal government should declare the United States a Christian nation.” Participants were asked to answer on the typic “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” scale. I’ve self-professedly embraced the Christian nationalist label, but I could easily disagree with the proposition. I would not disagree in principle. The idea of this federal declaration is desirable. But my answer, given our federalist polity, would be that the proper place for such declaration is the state level. In those jurisdictions I would also be pro-establishment of religion. Again, its not that I would disagree in principle, but what if someone did disagree for these reasons? They would then not fit the Christian nationalist bill per the report, at least in this regard. All that to say, surveys usually lack nuance and are therefore of limited utility.
Similarly, the proposition that the “federal government should enforce strict separation of church and state.” A non-Christian nationalist adherent could easily answer in the negative purely on the basis of constitutional theory. Similarly, asking whether prayer should be allowed in public schools—the survey scale doesn’t specify whether Christian or non-sectarian—or whether religious symbols should be allowed in public spaces gets you almost nowhere.
Read More
Related Posts:

As dark as Spurgeon’s suffering was, the Lord used it. Spurgeon was able to empathize with fellow sufferers in his preaching, teaching, and writing and point them to God. Spurgeon said, “I would go into the deeps a hundred times to cheer a downcast spirit. It is good for me to have been afflicted, that I might know how to speak a word in season to one that is weary.”

Of the numerous nicknames aptly attributed to Charles Hadden Spurgeon, perhaps the most incisive and comprehensive description would be the title of his well-known work The Soul Winner.
“I would rather be the means of saving a soul from death than be the greatest orator on earth,” Spurgeon said.[1] “Soul-winning is the chief business of the Christian minister” . . . “the main pursuit of every true believer.”[2]
Not only did he consistently preach from this conviction, but Spurgeon also modeled soul-winning in his personal life and leadership of Metropolitan Tabernacle. One historian reports that during Spurgeon’s 38-year pastorate, 14,692 people were baptized and joined the Metropolitan Tabernacle.[3] For Spurgeon, that staggering number was not merely a statistic, but souls to disciple.[4]
“We do not consider soul-winning to be accomplished by hurriedly inscribing more names upon our church-roll, in order to show a good increase at the end of the year,” Spurgeon said. “It is a part of our work to teach them to observe all things whatsoever Christ has commanded them.”[5]
Soul-Winning Is Soul Care
Unlike most of his contemporaries, Spurgeon viewed soul-winning holistically, not merely as conversion, but about making converts into disciples in the local church. Spurgeon once said,
Christian labors, disconnected from the church, are like sowing and reaping without having any barn in which to store fruits of the harvest; they are useful, but incomplete. . . . We can rejoice in converts, but without membership in the local church, those converts remain hidden, undiscipled, and in disobedience to Christ’s commands.[6]
Geoff Chang’s recent research shows, amidst all the Spurgeon scholarship, his ecclesiology remains largely unaddressed. Without a doubt, Spurgeon’s biblical convictions about the church made his ministry of soul-winning a robust and well-rounded ministry of soul care, but so also did his own personal suffering.
Spurgeon’s Soul Struggles
Long before the modern biblical counseling movement existed, Spurgeon was keen on the ministry of soul care. He was deeply familiar with suffering and well-acquainted with God’s grace for sufferers.
Experts have detailed Spurgeon’s numerous trials: physical ailments including smallpox, gout, rheumatism, obesity, and a burning kidney inflammation called Bright’s disease; mental illness including severe depression and anxiety; and ongoing spiritual warfare that included slander, the weight of preaching, and suicidal thoughts. One psychiatrist noted that if he lived today, Spurgeon would be diagnosed with bipolar disorder and treated with medicine.[7]
Spurgeon’s difficult circumstances shaped him into an exemplary model of suffering, which led to his commitment to soul care.
Spurgeon’s Trauma
One significant misfortune early in his pastorate transpired on the evening of October 19, 1856. During a sermon at Surrey Hall, malicious pranksters falsely shouted about a fire. Among the thousands gathered, panic ensued. Seven people died and 28 were seriously injured.
Spurgeon was twenty-two years old and newly married. He was carried from the pulpit in a state of shock and depression, which was probably exacerbated by the recent birth of his twin boys and the pressures of moving into a new home. “The senseless tragedy and the public accusation of the press nearly broke Charles’s mind,” one author observed, “not only in those early moments but also with lasting effects.”[8]
In sermons, Spurgeon frequently verbalized his condition, “I am quite out of order for addressing you tonight. I feel extremely unwell, excessively heavy, and exceedingly depressed.”[9]
Spurgeon’s Suicidal Ideation
Spurgeon’s struggle with depression and anxiety was so immense and persistent that he spoke of his desire to die in his writings to his congregation. In modern language, Spurgeon contemplated suicide. Spurgeon’s pain would be so great, he often found biblical language to express his suicidal desires. Spurgeon once preached, “I too could say with Job, ‘My soul chooseth strangling rather than life. . . . I could readily enough have laid violent hands upon myself, to escape from my misery.”[10]
In another sermon, referring to Elijah’s prayer to die in 1 Kings 19:4, Spurgeon said of himself, “I know one who, in the bitterness of his soul, has often prayed it.”[11] In a sermon on Psalm 88, he commented, “Worse than physical death has cast its dreadful shadow over us . . . death would be welcomed as a relief, by those whose depressed spirits make their existence a living death.”[12]
As dark as Spurgeon’s suffering was, the Lord used it. Spurgeon was able to empathize with fellow sufferers in his preaching, teaching, and writing and point them to God.

Read More
Related Posts: