Why Aren't United Methodists Known For Solid Teaching?

Have you ever been to a "classroom church"? The ones where everyone takes notes during the sermon? I have. I remember the first time I visited Crossroads Fellowship while I was away at college. You have to understand...my family was Methodist all the way back to the Wesleys, so the idea of me trying out other churches wasn't popular with my grandmother. But I liked Crossroads. They had a young dynamic senior pastor who had a gift for teaching and preaching. The praise and worship segment was great (this was in the 90's before the big worship boom) and I liked the people. Plus their congregation was huge! After growing up in a small town church, the anonymity offered by a mega-church was enticing. But I couldn't deal with the note-takers. This was before PowerPoint existed, so this church used an overhead projector and uncovered each point as the pastor reached it during his sermon. (I thought sermon note-takers were nerds then and I still think that to this day. I have such a one-track mind that taking notes literally keeps me from hearing the sermon.) But I'll always remember Crossroads as the place where I started "getting fed" in church. (Note to non-evangelicals: When you hear someone say they're not getting fed, watch out. They'll be worshiping at a mega-church in the 'burbs soon.)

The pastor's sermons at Crossroads were powerful and systematic. They flowed and they were organized. (And if you actually took notes for a few weeks on those forms from the bulletin, and stuffed them in your Bible, you looked really spiritual to the girls you were trying to impress.) Lately I've been thinking about churches that have good teaching and churches that don't. Most United Methodist churches, to be honest, aren't known for quality teaching. I've been wondering about that and I think I've come up with a theory.

It has to do with attitude and authority. The congregation's attitude and the preacher's authority. The ideal church is one where the people have an attitude of expectancy and teachability and the preacher exercises spiritual authority when he speaks. Most mainline churches I've seen have it reversed. The preacher usually speaks with less certainty and more subjectivity while the congregation listens with apathy or distrust. Somewhere along the way, United Methodists picked up the idea that different points-of-view should always be entertained. Most curriculum isn't even designed for straightforward teaching anymore, it's mostly interactive and discussion-based. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but there comes a time when someone needs to step in and say, "This is how it is. You can have your opinions and we'll all keep our minds open but as a church this is what we teach." .

I lead a teenagers Sunday School class, and when I began teaching, I felt the need to affirm everyone no matter how outrageous their opinions were. We hate to tell people, "You're wrong," but sometimes it's necessary (as diplomatically as possible of course). Teachers feel they're being arrogant if they reprove or admonish someone, but that's what teachers are called to do. God places anointing on people's lives and expects them to minister to others with that power. A teacher's primary objective shouldn't be to protect self-esteem, it should be to make disciples of Jesus Christ. People want direction and boundaries. They want to know that teachers and preachers know what they're talking about. The United Methodist Church will rediscover this kind of authority on a grand scale sooner or later. When we do, the moral and intellectual relativism that has become our trademark will go by the wayside, and with it all the unnecessary controversies, church trials and General Conference circuses.