How many times must we have this debate? Oh, wait, that’s not the topic this time. This time it is the “practice of war” as incompatible with Christian teaching. Jonathan Marlowe, of The Ivy Bush has one of the more profound and perplexing comments, left here at Locusts & Honey, than I have read in a long time:
“Jonathan said…
You are exactly right about this. [Jonathan is replying to Keith Taylor, commenter, who emphasizes the need to uphold the Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church and the Confession of Faith of the Evangelical United Brethren Church provisions on the blood atonement and the final judgment.] The Articles of Religion of the ME Church and the Confession of Faith of the EUB Church are doctrinal standards, and it is a chargeable offense for anyone (lay or clergy) to disseminate any doctrines contrary thereto.
Also, remember that the Confession of Faith of the EUB states that ‘War and bloodshed are contrary to the gospel and spirit of Christ.’ This is not just a statement from the Social Principles (which can change every four years and are not binding). This is a quote from a doctrinal standard, and as such, it is binding on all UM clergy and laity.
I am serious. We need to be more vigorous in upholding all of our doctrinal standards.”
Commenter Mitch then replies with this: “Of course the same EUB Article XVI also says that governments derive their just powers from God and provide protection for their citizens. And Methodist Article XXIII explicitly recognizes the authority of the US Constitution (which provides for the common defense through armies and navies) and establishes the principle that the US ‘ought not be subject to any foreign jurisdiction.’”
My answer to Mitch would be that the rulers and U.S. Constitution provisions are simply to recognize that the U.S. is a sovereign nation and are not intended to address the specific content of the Constitution, or the means by which sovereignty is kept.
I’m sure the “pacifism in the light of the Discipline” topic Jonathan addresses has been written about before, but I am struck that 1) there is to be no disagreement on that other incompatibility topic, even to the extent that people of a different mind are accused of embracing evil, ignoring the Bible, not accepting Scripture as authoritative, blah, blah, blah, and 2) there is to be no disagreement, it seems, about any doctrinal standard except pacifism.
Jonathan is correct. The Articles and the Confession, being our doctrine, can’t be changed. Remembering that the other “incompatibility” issue, the one that has Good News, the Confessing Movement, and IRD so worked up over isn’t even directly mentioned in the Articles, but in Discipline sections that can be changed, it does seem that folks can be too quick to make heresy charges.’ Directly or indirectly I’ve had the heresy charge thrown against me for rejecting the view that Scripture is inerrant. Instead, I accept it as the inspired Word of God “containing all things necessary for salvation.”
A good case can be made, then, that any United Methodist who supports war under any condition is a heretic. Of course, we have to define what is meant by the word “heresy.” It can be defined as deviating from dogma, or in the case of the United Methodist Church, the Doctrinal Standards. A central question is whether any deviation whatsoever makes one a non-believer. If that were the case, then those of other denominations might have to be considered heretics by us. Maybe there are degrees of heresy which at the farthest point arrive at unbelief.
I tend to oppose most wars, including the invasion of Iraq, but I subscribe to some version of the “Just War Theory.” In light of the Confession providing that war is incomptabile with the Gospel, my view is almost certainly heretical. However, how many Boards of Ordained Ministry would have tossed my candidacy on the basis that I reject pacifism? Would they give it the same attention they give the other “incompatibility” issue, the one addressed in paragraph 304.3 of the Discipline? Our doctrinal standards clearly embrace pacifism. True, Paragraphs 164 and 165 of our Social Principles countenance war under limited circumstances. However, the Social Principles cannot alter or amend, and are in fact subservient and inferior to the Doctrinal Standards, which embrace pacifism. How then can I reject the pacifism doctrine? I suppose on the same basis that John Wesley performed or authorized what were probably illegal ordinations. Out of necessity, as I judge the needs of the world and as I look at the whole of the Gospel.
I suppose my main point is that some of those who criticize liberal evangelicals for picking and choosing with regard to matters of faith (heretics?) may be doing the same thing themselves. And seriously, of the two “incompatibility” issues, which has the greater impact on the world and survival of civilization? It would be great to reach a point where liberals and conservatives see themselves struggling with various issues as we walk a common road, instead of each insisting that the other isn’t on the true path. Kim, for instance, will shake his head in disdain and regret that I reject pacifism. His heart will weep that I could accept a view he sees so clearly as evil according to his understanding of the Gospel. And yet, he won’t suggest that I “get off his path,” but will expect that along God’s path, God will continue to call out directions, which either of us might not understand, might forget, or in sin, reject.
Hat Tip: Jason Woolever, of Post Methodist, who has been another leader on the discussion, including here.
{ 15 comments… read them below or add one }
Jonathan Marlowe 12.02.06 at 1:40 am
Joel, thanks for recognizing the importance of this topic for United Methodist theological identity. I get all my arguments about this from Steve Long’s book, Living the Discipline: United Methodist Theological Reflections on War, Civilization, and Holiness. To use a metaphor often employed by Kim, I can only play the monkey to Steve Long’s organ grinding! Steve was one of my professors at Duke, and he got his PhD under Hauerwas, who by the way is STILL a United Methodist although he attends an Episcopal Church!
Pam 12.02.06 at 10:12 am
but I am struck that 1) there is to be no disagreement on that other incompatibility topic, even to the extent that people of a different mind are accused of embracing evil, ignoring the Bible, not accepting Scripture as authoritative, blah, blah, blah, and 2) there is to be no disagreement, it seems, about any doctrinal standard except pacifism.
You’ve not been reading the discussion boards and blogs of conservative United Methodists, then, have you? There certainly is a movement to “hard code” the UM Articles of Religion and read them as unchangable. Never mind that Wesley took the Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles and picked and chose from them, eliminating the articles he didn’t like. Apparently we are now to see Wesley as practically infallible.
Go read UM discussion groups and you too can be accused of embracing evil, ignoring scripture and all sorts of other bad intentions. I know I have been.
Sorry, but this is one of my personal bug-bears: the idea that there must not be and cannot be any further theologicial reflection beyond that done by a denominational “saint” back in the “good old days” when everyone was holy.
If Wesley believed that the Father demanded blood, then so must we. If Wesley thought that the second person of the Trinity had to “humiliate” himself to become human, then so must we. If Wesley thought that war was sometimes justifiable but that it was mainly a sin of the rich and powerful against the poor, using the latter for canon fodder, then, er…..
Richard 12.02.06 at 10:32 am
I’m struck by the difference between the UMC and the British Methodist Church when it comes to doctrinal standards. You seem to hve these things much more tightly defined than we do. Our ‘Deed of Union’ says
Joel 12.02.06 at 11:06 am
Pam,
There is blog discussion about the doctrinal “standards’ that can be changed, but the United Methodist Church Constitution provides in its Restrictive Rules among other things that the Articles of Religion (Methodist) and the Confession of Faith (EUB) cannot be changed or amended by General Conference. I’m aware that other Methodist churches and traditions provide differently.
Things that can be changed include the “Theological Tasks” (the portion where the “Wesley” quadrilateral is found), the Social Principles, the rules of organization, etc. as long as those changes don’t conflict with the Restrictive rules.
Richard,
Yes, we do. Thankfully the Restrictive Rules didn’t ban women clergy!
Because an indirect and sometimes harsh-sounding attack on the Catholic Church is contained in some of the Methodist articles, the UMC, while not able to soften the language, has issued documents explaining the historical background and comtemporary understanding for the language of the relevant Articles. For example, General Conference 2004 passed the “Resolution of Intent — With a View to Unity” that dealt with articles 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20 and 21, as printed in the 2004 UMC Book of Discipline.
Because Wesley’s sermon’s are not entirely consistent, either with each other or with all doctrinal mattters contained in the Discipline, the Judicial Council might have to rule on disputes arising from those differences.
Jonathan Marlowe 12.02.06 at 12:33 pm
Pam said,
Sorry, but this is one of my personal bug-bears: the idea that there must not be and cannot be any further theologicial reflection beyond that done by a denominational “saint†back in the “good old days†when everyone was holy.
Pam, I can undertand your pesonal bug bear here. It would be unfaithful for us to be stuck in the past. Yet, it would also be a mistake to forget the past. The current UM Discipline not only allows but encourages ongoing theological reflection. Yet, there are certain historical anchors. I do not see any contradiction between these two realities.
It is a bit like the canon of the Bible. It is closed. We cannot decide next week to add a few books to the Bible. But this does not stifle creative imaginations from continuing to reflect in new and fresh ways on the scriptural witness. As a matter of fact, the Scriptures are so rich and surprising that we will never run out of new insights. “God hath more light yet to break forth from His holy word.” There is not new revelation, but there is new illumination of the original revelation.
I think there is a healthy tension in the current UM Discipline’s theological section about respecting the past and looking to the future.
Pam 12.02.06 at 2:45 pm
Pam, I can undertand your pesonal bug bear here. It would be unfaithful for us to be stuck in the past. Yet, it would also be a mistake to forget the past. The current UM Discipline not only allows but encourages ongoing theological reflection. Yet, there are certain historical anchors. I do not see any contradiction between these two realities.
My bugbear is not the UM governance per se, atlhough perhaps it might be if I looked into it in fine-tooted detail, I don’t know. My bugbear is the way I see the AOR and other declared doctrinal standards - such as Wesley’s sermons - being hard-coded by folk like Good News and the Unofficial Confessing Movement and people who seem to generally support them - often unthinkingly, it seems to me, in the false conviction that they are defending God and Scripture. There are a lot of ideas in Wesley’s Sermons I don’t agree with and I sure as heck couldn’t feel comfortable thinking that I had to own everything in these sermons.
I have no problem with having stated doctrinal standards and seeing them as generous fences around which to do theological reflection. What I dislike is: a) using such standards to judge and beat up other Christians; b) the fact that people in the pew seem to get away with lots of crazy heresy as long as they name themselves “conservative”. (e.g. I had quite a bitter discussion with a UMC member who insisted that premillenial rapture was Methodist theology and that anyone who didn’t believe in it wasn’t a real Christian, let alone Methodist.)
Joel 12.03.06 at 3:40 am
Pam,
Wesley’s standard sermons and explanatory notes on the New Testament were hard coded by the Methodist Church union with the EUB in 1968, as the plan for union says that “although the language of the first Restrictive Rule never has been formally defined, Wesley’s Sermons and Notes were undertood specifically to be included in our present existing and established standards of doctrine.” This has nothing to do with Good News, the Confessing Movement, etc. The Judicial Council has upheld this understanding of the first Restrictive Rule. Thus for the United Methodist Church, it is settled that’s Wesley’s standards sermons and notes are protected doctrine.
j2 12.03.06 at 7:56 am
I’m glad it is finally coming to the core of what the real discussion, debate, and controversy is. I’ve stated very publicly and strongly my recent personal withdrawal from the UMC and the congregation I had attended this past year. I would have stayed “in” with them save one important fact: I am new to Methodist thought and tradition. Over the past year I have been intensely engaged with the congregation and the UMC through study, discussion, and living. I took very seriously the need to find myself able to accept doctrinal standards that I could commit my loyalty and conscience to. The controversial subject that pushed me to a breaking point was only symptomatic of what I really found objectionable. It is the discussions here, at Locust and Honey, and at Post-Methodist that represent what truly drove me away.
Before going further let me explain my background with religion and spirituality first, as I believe I am much further outside the box of Methodism than most commenters here and there could be. A key consideration to understanding where I come from is the fact that I was born into the Church of Christ(southern variety) which some of you may or may not be familiar with. You might say we are a lot like a Baptist, but that would really be wrong. There is no loose association, let alone ecumenical conference or other hierarchy within it. There is no accepted doctrine or dogma and each congregation is held to be autonomous and capable of independently abiding in the truth of God’s Word. Strangely, there is almost consistent interpretation and methodology, as well as practice and discipline amongst varying congregations. It turns out that paper isn’t really needed to form, transmit, and enforce dogma and doctrine. Growing up in it, especially considering how my mother presented it, I never felt comfortable with it and by the time I left home I also left church, kicking the baby and the bathwater over on my way out the door. I immediately embraced atheism and agnosticism after departing; frankly it was a lot more fun - in the beginning.
Without repeating another VH1 “Behind the Scenes” segment I can say that there is not one controversy, sin, or heresy being discussed here that didn’t directly touch my life in those years of rebellion. My spirituality was found in the spiritual kindergarten of a twelve step program (I’m trying to be anonymous with that). My belief in God came from recognizing a practical fact of existence that I was not larger than the culture and religious tradition that I was born into - going all the way back to my roots in early Catholicism. It made more sense for me to understand God in the terms of the culture, two millenia old, my present culture understands most. By accepting that fact and experimentally living as though I have that faith I have grown to really believe in it. I could not find it easy to actually become a member of any church, though. After more than 10 years and a returning crisis of mental health last year I realized that I was to begin my venture as a Christian in the traditional sense of belonging to a congregation of believers. The first church I happened to visit was a Methodist one and miracle of NOT feeling like a fish out of water cinched the deal for me. Looking back I realize it may have been laziness on my part not to search and shop among many different denominations. But I did take the task of my commitment seriously.
The one thing that I know I need from a faith family is the spiritual protection, nurturance, and firm guidance toward that sanctified state we all seek. That means, as arbitrary as it may seem, that a church must stand for something - something that at times will require members to be subject to correction and discipline towards a common faith. It doesn’t mean anything goes. It isn’t moral relativism. If that were true I wouldn’t need a church at all as our secular society offers that. I can say that all the good and bad experiences from a life of faith and non-faith, obedience and rebellion, going this way then that is something to be grateful for, not because it was all cool in God’s world though. I strongly recommend living into your faith without insisting on dragging other people along. If the conservative position on issue X is not popular or capable of being consistent within a denomination(or congregation) it may be a sign of greater integrity to withdraw and reform with like-minded people. Likewise, if a new view and desire to live a faith that is at least non-traditional, if not heretical, concerning issue Y, is being entertained by a liberal or progressive group it is far more respectful to acknowledge that difference as one that cannot be sustained within the same community without causing grave injury to that segment who disagrees. The attribute of liberal or conservative is always relative to the issue at hand and not necessarily indicative of progress or truth. To insist on every one tolerating the giant pink elephant in the living room is, well, crazy. That, to me, seems to be the prevailing condition of the UMC. Perhaps it is a result of the many mergers and accretions that have happened over it’s history. Or it could be the result of failing to take Christian discipline seriously. That discipline can only be freely accepted by the member who sincerely accepts it to be true. If one cannot accept a doctrine or well defined position of faith they are free to leave it. To stay and disregard it is a mockery.
The UMC, like many other mainline denominations, is in deep internal conflict that must be resolved. So many of the commenters in the methoblogosphere are being called to work out either a common body of faith or a split that serves to unite the most in a more basic and shared faith. Remember we do all hold ourselves common to a legacy of Christ worship be we Baptist, Mormon, Catholic, Lutheran, or whatever. But that doesn’t mean at this point in time we should be forced into a more specific shared faith that none of us can truly claim. I believe that we will do our best in service to Christ when we can respect our individual boundaries of faith, sharing at moments more intimately, but preserving our faith where we cannot agree. I also believe we will gain the respect of non-believers more frequently when we demonstrate honestly how we differ amongst ourselves.
I will continue to observe the efforts of the UMC to resolve conflicts in hopes that I may be able to return to some portion of the members, or all of them, as God may safely lead me back. My greatest hope and prayer is that we all find a greater blessing even if we must follow differing paths.
Peace and Love
Jody
Joel 12.03.06 at 1:56 pm
Jody,
On the one hand, I can appreciate your perspective. On the other hand, I think you are being simplistic. A few examples.
The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) has no written polity, either, but is beset by the same kind of divisions as is the UMC, the main difference being Disciples churches can disaffiliate and many of them have.
There can be a harshness and meanness to the interactions between Church of Christ leaders and those of other denominations. In many communities where I have lived, the local church of Christ has declined to participate in ecumenical services. That’s fine, but they often go a step further and give the reason that “they don’t fellowship with non-believers.”
Leaders of various Churches of Christ often launch rather vicious attacks, sometimes in the newspapers, on another Church of Christ that it doesn’t think is being true to the faith. In Alabama, one such church was attacked in the newspaper for adopting more comtemporary type services. It was dissent within but attack from outside.
Max Lucado has endured some harsh criticism from other Church of Christ leaders as being either too “liberal” (a laugh) or too “modern.” Maybe it is just jealousy at all the books he has sold.
Now a case of personal experience. Friends of mine went to Florida to visit their daughter. They went with her to her local Church of Christ. The parents were introduced at church and then castigated in from of the congregation for being “non-believers.” (The parents belonged to the Disciples of Christ.) I have heard many others tell of similar situations.
The United Methodist Church has discord because it attracts a diverse group of people AND those people often forget the Biblical mandate to seek common purpose. The truth is that except for the fringes on both sides, UM’s along the range of conservative to liberal often have more in common than they are willing to admit. It becomes a common jealousy, such that it becomes “I won’t support the program you advance because you are conservative/liberal so your program must be suspect”. For myself, I participate in the Prison Fellowship Ministries Angel Tree program even though I detest many of the views of its former head, Charles Colson.
Finally, it is an illusion that some type of split for the UMC will heal conflict. If the church splits, since my overall theology is closer to liberal orthodox than to progressive, I would stay with the more conservative faction. But then I would still be in conflict over issues such as civilian religion, war, social justice, capital punishment, corporate corruption, capitalism and such. John of Locusts & Honey and I would still be just as much at odds over certain issues as we are now. I would still find myself at some odds as I would vote for Barak Obama over the Republican nominee for president and John would still be a libertarian. I would still be in conflict with folks in the local church who oppose Africa University because “charity begins at home.” I’d still be in conflict with those in the more conservative church who favor the evil oppression of the Palestinian people.
j2 12.03.06 at 9:02 pm
Hi Joel,
I’m okay with your response above but it really was besides the point that I was making. Forget the CoC, I left it for good reason after all, for many of the reasons you cite. It was to explain what it means to have lived outside the box of all boxes, faith in a God of any kind, and returning to the larger culture of faith, not the UMC. I appreciate your point that it may seem an illusion to suggest a split within the UMC could potentially be healing. The UMC is not important in the larger scheme, nor is any denomination. My judgement is that the UMC has fallen into decline, not merely in numerics, but usefullness to it’s members, and is increasingly doing so because it limits the growth of members by tolerating such diverse beliefs that are essentially incompatible one to another. You may think that those who are at odds with you over issue X are making too big of a deal out of a matter that should simply be covered by love and tolerance. Yet at the same time you are passionate about moral change within the church and world on issue Y to the point of being defiant and perplexed that you cannot move your spiritual agenda further along. The “you” here is anyone reading this for their personal reflection. Anyone in the UMC who thinks this diversity of faith is manageable within the organizational umbrella is failing to see the escalating conflict and polarization. I assure you that what is happening in the larger Anglican communion regarding what is a practical schism of faith within the Episcopal Church is only a heartbeat away from the UMC. Whistle in the dark as you will, but the view from outside the UMC is getting very clear. As most of the UMC currently is made up of American religious practioners the trend of exercising an individuals right to withdraw and reform will work against the UMC. And what reasons does the UMC practice and polity offer an American seeking a place of worship and personal growth to pick it over any other group? If you say the acceptance of diversity then what does the UMC offer that the Unitarian Universalist do not offer, or the UUC? If one tends to seek out a more conservative religious practice then there are plenty of denominations and churches who offer a much more functional group to worship and live with. And if it is not simple diversity but radical liberal theology one seeks then how radical do you expect the UMC to ever be? I could go on, but one either gets this reality or they don’t, I have no need to push this point. I have left.
Joel 12.03.06 at 9:27 pm
Jody,
I think what you are seeking is Utopia. I don’t know that you will find it.
I was only using the Church of Christ as one example. There is conflict among Southern Baptists.
If I look at things really honestly, I’d say my theology is about 90% the same as John of Locusts & Honey (I’m just using him as an example). There is an apperace of conflict perhaps for at least two reasons 1) public forums such as blogs tend to exaggerate differences; and 2) the 10% that John and I disagree about we passionately disagree on. We don’t spend time discussing the matters where we are on the same page. If we worshiped at the same local church, the conflict might be low-key.
I accept every bit of the Constitutionally protected doctrinal standards of the United Methodist Church, as does John. I can’t claim obedience to every bit of it because it is now clear to me that our protected doctrinal standards include a mandate to be a pacifist, which I am not. Technically that would be a chargable offense, but since probably 80% of the United Methodist clergy and maybe 90% of the laity reject pacifism, no charges will ever be brought. On the other hand, I do not agree with all of the legislatively enacted doctrinal not protected by our Constitution (that is, those that can be changed by General Conference), but I will uphold those matters as I seek to change them.
Larry B 12.03.06 at 9:56 pm
Well put j2. I’m beginning to feel the same way about the UMC losing it’s definition because it’s trying to envelop an increasing amount of diversity.
When our conference bishop shows up to preach for a Sunday and spends her sermon time telling the congregation that the Judicial Council has made errant decisions based on her own (not the churches) understanding of the issues, you begin to wonder whether it’s not just becoming a contest to see who’s ideas will win or lose based on who’s in power, rather than respecting a churches doctrine.
Joel 12.03.06 at 10:17 pm
Larry,
Are you also willing to criticize conservative Bishops who have criticized rulings from the Judicial Council?
When the Judicial Council ruled that the admonition against alcohol consumption contained in the Book of Discipline cannot lead to an automatic mandate by a Conference or Board of Ordained Ministry for abstinence by those seeking ordination, that is exactly what happened. The Judicial Council ruled that the clergy candidate has the right to demonstrate that his/her consumption “is consistent with the ideals of excellence of mind, purity of body, and responsible social behavior.” (footnote to ordination requirements, page 203, 2004 BOD)
Larry B 12.05.06 at 2:21 am
I’ll criticize any Bishop that spends a sermon during regular worship criticizing the structure of the church that is supposed to be providing a forum for worship during that time. Discussions regarding church polity etc, in my opinion, ought to be reserved for time outside of regular worship. Whether you consider worship to be a gift from God to us or a gift from us to God, I don’t think church polity discussions are much of an offering to either of us.
Incidentally, I didn’t say whether or not it was a conservative or liberal issue. Would be interested to know why you thought (although admittedly correctly) that it was a liberal issue. ie was it me being the poster, or the mention of a female bishop or both?
Joel 12.05.06 at 4:58 am
Larry,
Your objection to diversity sort of tipped me off that such was the direction you were coming from.
I exchanged e-mails once with a pastor who was incensed that the Council of Bishops had taken a stance pretty much against the Iraq invasion. Then I pointed out to him that many of his own sermons spoke of the necessity of invading Iraq. His view was that the Bishops should write individually, on “plain” letterhead, but that he should be able to use the pulpit to not only criticize the Bishops but support the war. When I asked him why he shouldn’t put his own views on “plain” letterhead instead of using the pulpit, he accused me of being “mean-spirited.”