As Melissa and I continue to work to get settled into our apartment I have been amazed out how fast things can change. Three weeks ago I was getting ready for a wedding rehearsal, two weeks ago was the last day of Annual Conference, and one week ago we were still up to our eyes in boxes. Now we are starting to get our bearings on the area that we live in. I am starting to figure out which roads to avoid during rush hour(s) and the fast way to get to Barnes and Noble.
In some of the reading I have been doing, I have also noticed how fast things can change within an institution. This has been particularly stark in Nathan Hatch’s Democratization of American Christianity. Hatch details how quickly British Methodism embarked on a “quest for respectability” and an “exaggerated concern for institutional discipline” after 1789 (91). By 1815 “rural itinerancy and the circuit horse were almost extinct” (91).
I found this passage particularly thought-provoking:
The system [of circuit riders in early American Methodism] kept the church dominated by young men who, according to a critic in the 1820s, were inexperienced, rustic, wanting in “social intercourse,” and contemptuous of their elder colleagues who had been forced to locate. If Americans first became susceptible to a cult of youth in this period, as David Hackett Fischer has argued, then it may be very significant that the Methodists advanced by means of a youth cadre and that power within the church constitutionally remained in the hands of the young rather than with those who could claim age and experience (87).
I really don’t have any in-depth comments to make about this, except that it is just very interesting that during Asbury’s tenure and during a time when Methodism in America saw dramatic growth it was dominated by inexperienced, passionate, youth (and one authoritarian leader, Asbury himself). There seems to be a lot of discussion about the need for young(er) clergy in the UMC. Yet, I have not noticed nearly as much action where young clergy are being given the opportunity to exercise meaningful leadership in their Annual Conferences than I have heard people lamenting the lack of young clergy leadership. For better or worse, the current approach to cultivating leadership seems to be very different than Asbury’s.
Kevin M. Watson 
I don’t know that this holds true every time, but it does seem that often, progress, achievement, or change happen with the combination of youthful energy, led or guided by experienced vision. The group we sometimes call the Greatest Generation won World War II and freed Europe, but they were led by people who were of a different generational cohort — Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Marshall, Churchill; etc., who were all much older than they.
Whatever one may think of the societal changes brought on by the Baby Boomers, their impact is difficult to deny. And again they were led by people who were older — the Beatles, MLK, both Kennedys, and so on, none of whom were Boomers.
This may be my own prejudice talking, but I see whatever youthful vision that is seemingly being marshaled by some segments of the church today, given labels such as “emergent,” “emerging,” and so on, as having few if any experienced leaders helping give direction as has happened before. My own thought is that we would at this time be ready look to the Boomers for that vision and leadership, as they were led by an older generation, and their parents were so led, etc., but we’ve found them to be so self-centered and self-focused that they don’t have anything to offer beyond themselves.
That second component of the great Wesleyan revival of that time frame is, as you mention, Asbury’s authoritarian leadership. For better or worse, he channelled that great energy and passion into a direction that achieved things, rather than just spent themselves in all directions. Maybe I’m just reading the surface of today’s situation, but I see plenty of the same passion and drive, as well as limited respect for what’s gone before, as in the 18th and 19th centuries. But today I see almost none of the direction and guidance offered then by Asbury.
Brett – Thanks for your thought-provoking comment. I think I mostly agree with the need for experienced leadership, but I do think it has its limits. What happens when those with experience are not able to move beyond certain paradigms or ways of seeing the world? It seems to me that one of the reasons that there may be less experience in emergent and other groups is because the folks with experience and the folks in emergent are not speaking the same language. The people with the experience in some instances may not be able to lead the people without experiences to where God is calling them to go.
That is just my initial reaction to your thoughts. Thanks for making me think more deeply, and please feel free to write more with where you think I may be off.
Blessings!
Kevin —
I think you hit on something by noting that the different groups in this mix don’t always speak the same language. But I also think some of these groups *choose* to speak differently and sometimes don’t show much charity towards others by offering up some sort of translation guide. Nor does it seem as though some of them are much willing to learn a little of the other’s tongue. And I speak of groups on all sides of this issue — I’ve heard traditionalists mock emergents for not understanding the concepts they’re talking about as well as vice-versa.
Although I’m at most a tail-end Boomer (in my early 40s), I recognize that I’m more of an establishment guy than an emergent one — but I try to make the mix as even as I can. Still, I understand the establishment of the experienced can be reluctant or unwilling to move beyond existing paradigms and meet needed change (Other people have probably read more in these emergent or emerging areas and may be able to correct what I’m about to say if I’ve misunderstood).
The issue I often see is that the move seems to be driven less by a move from an older paradigm to a new one than by the desire to move from an older paradigm — period. No new choice, no map, no outline, no guide, etc. I understand that new paradigms fluctuate and can’t always be completely articulated until they begin to be experienced. But I’m relcutant to move from Here to There unless someone can at least point in the general direction of There. In visual terms, people who want me to stop looking at an old picture and start looking at a new one need to at least know what wall the new one’s hung on. In the Lamont terms you may have learned (or the Duke terms I learned), I don’t want to kick over a fence until I know why it’s there. I hear and read a lot of expressed desire to move on from established methods and ways of thinking, but we really do need to have something to move to, because aimless wandering just takes up time. I guess we need a mix of them — purposeful wandering? Intentional browsing?
And PS — good thoughts on the Sunday meal phenomenon. I’ll be stealing it.
Wow–this provoked a couple of essay responses.
I’m with you on the need for young leadership, and your historical observation is quite astute. Question: Did the young clergy in the time of Asbury commandeer the helm by sheer passion, drive, and force, with Asbury riding the coat tails of youthful exuberance to glory, or did Asbury recognize the need, empower leaders, and push excellent young candidates to the fore?
I’ve met a number of young leaders, some engaged in excellent ministries and taking advantage of every opportunity. I’ve met other young leaders who are waiting to be asked to step forward, and as they wait they ask, “Why aren’t the older clergy using me well?”
I lean toward those who are taking their own initiative, creating their own networks, and casting new vision for the United Methodist Church as those persons whom I believe will have the greatest potential impact over the long run. To use a cowboy expression, the bull must be taken by the horns.