Unpublished, December 2005
THE PERIODICAL UNITED METHODISM NEEDS
by Rev. Paul T. Stallsworth
The United Methodist Church needs another periodical.
Many informed United Methodists might reply to this claim: “What? Why? Right now United Methodists have more periodicals than we can possibly read.”
At first glance, this reply makes some sense. Consider the present assortment of United Methodist periodicals. First of all, there are the congregational and district newsletters. Add the conference newspapers and magazines, jurisdictional publications, and denominational periodicals (e.g., Circuit Rider, Interpreter, Quarterly Review, and Response). The United Methodist Reporter — from Dallas, TX — is a denomination-wide weekly. In addition, the renewal groups of various theological persuasions offer their own publications: e.g., The Confessing Movement within The United Methodist Church, Good News, the Institute on Religion and Democracy/UMAction, Lifewatch, and the Methodist Federation for Social Action have their own, in-house publications. Also, The Christian Century, which features a wonderful array of theologically diverse articles, and Zion’s Herald publish many articles of special interest to United Methodists. Furthermore, there are the Web sites maintained by many of the aforementioned, and United Methodist blogs are increasing in number. As is obvious, engaged, alert United Methodist clergy and laity could easily spend forty hours a week reading through church-related periodicals and Web sites.
Even so, there is one periodical that is needed but is not yet being published. That is a periodical that would carry serious, thoughtful theological argument on church teaching (doctrinal and moral).
Again comes an objection from many United Methodists: “But The United Methodist Church is currently suffering from too much theological argument. Theological argument is all over the church, all the time. We United Methodists do not need any more of it.”
While apparently true, this objection does not hold water for three reasons. First, there is a move afoot in United Methodism to limit theological argument. For example, under new editorial leadership, The United Methodist Reporter, which used to be an excellent and fair forum for airing theological disagreements, has shifted its attention away from controversial theological matters. Without the Reporter hosting denominational arguments, there is no other church-wide periodical that accomplishes this necessary task.
Second, the theological arguments that are taking place most often involve one party in the church making charges against another party in the church. Fragments of these arguments often appear in conference newspapers/ magazines, in denominational publications, and in renewal-group literature. Unfortunately, these engagements are not as thoughtful as they should be. Nor are they sustained and allowed to develop in a way that instructs.
Third, it appears that no church periodical, and no one within the church, is consistently making the case for the church’s teaching. Again, The United Methodist Church’s teaching is not being taught, in a way that constructively engages those who disagree, by leaders within the church. Such fruitful, theological teaching is simply not happening.
So, the claim remains: The United Methodist Church needs another periodical.
The needed periodical might be named Doctrine and Dissent (or Doctrine, Dissent, and Defense). It would be published quarterly. Its prose would be theological without being academic and ponderous. It would be written for the church — not for the college, the university, or the divinity school.
Each issue of Doctrine and Dissent would consist of three essays published as a brief booklet. The first essay would present the established teaching of The United Methodist Church on a doctrinal or moral subject. More than simply quoting The Book of Discipline, the initial essay would assert the church’s teaching and the reasons for that teaching. The second essay would offer reasoned dissent. Objections to the church teaching of the first essay, and reasons for those objections, would be laid out in essay number two. And the third essay would be an exercise in the defense of the church’s doctrine: it would have the writer of the first essay meet the objections of the writer in dissent. Again, the format of each issue would be: doctrine, dissent, and defense.
The essays of this periodical would be written by the theologically best and brightest, not the loudest and most shrill, in The United Methodist Church. Bishops, divinity-school professors, and pastors would be the main contributors to the periodical.
For example, assume that significant challenges against United Methodist doctrine on the Trinity arises, as happened when Bishop Sprague was in the news a couple of years ago. As soon as possible, Doctrine and Dissent would feature an issue on the Trinity. United Methodism’s teaching would be presented (probably by a bishop), a dissenting case would feature the dissenting challenges of the day, and the church’s teaching would then be defended by the original essayist. This particular issue of Doctrine and Dissent would certainly not end the dispute regarding the Trinity, but it would put it into perspective; and there would be no question about where The United Methodist Church, as Church, stands on the matter.
In a denomination that has seemingly intractable theological disagreements and that has fragments of theological arguments running throughout its periodicals, Doctrine and Dissent would help to centralize and represent, organize and guide, the theological arguments of the day. By allowing the church’s best teachers to step forward, this proposed periodical would help The United Methodist Church, as Church, to teach more often and more truthfully.
The United Methodist Church needs another periodical. Name it Doctrine and Dissent.
Unpublished, October 2005
THE TROUBLE WITH THE TRUTH
by Dr. Dennis R. Sheppard
In the current theological debates within traditional Protestantism, many people are asking Pontius Pilate’s question, “What is truth?” (John 18:38, RSV) That is a good question, for it provides an excellent starting point for lively theological discussion. However, when moving from this question to the answers offered, we are immediately confronted with problems. The trouble is not with the question itself but with the attempts to answer it.
In today’s theological debates, the question, What is truth?, creates two, opposing sides. In formulating its answer, one side begins with a humanistic perspective. The other side starts with a theological approach. The Church knows that theological truth does not come from an exclusively man-centered perspective, no matter how sophisticated it might be. Consider Ludwig Feuerbach’s comment — “the personality of God is nothing else than the projected personality of human beings” (The Essence of Christianity) — to see how the humanistic perspective is a stuffy little room with no doors or windows that open to “the splendor of truth.” (John Paul II)
“If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” (John 8:31-32, RSV) The word for truth here is aletheia, which is from the root word alethes, which means that which is true or that which is not concealed. That theological truth is revealed in Jesus Christ is aptly demonstrated in John 1:14. Moreover, in John 14:15-17, Jesus declares that the Holy Spirit is active when truth is revealed. So theological truth begins with God; and the advance of that truth, in the hearts and minds of people, requires God’s self-revelation. Karl Barth, the giant of Protestant theology in the twentieth century, maintained that all theological truth is revealed truth. (See his Epistle to the Romans.)
Real truth — truth that matters most, truth that makes the greatest difference, truth that changes lives — is truth revealed by the Triune God. Ironically, even Friedrich Nietzsche argued that, when Christian claims lose their power over the lives of people, such people will have no truth to guide their lives. So Nietzsche resorted to human wisdom to make up new truths for people’s lives. When Jesus told the disciples that the truth would set them free, He was saying that it would set them free from the hindrance of human wisdom disguised in the garb of ultimate truth (such as Nietzschean wisdom). When Jesus ran into conflict with the Pharisees, it was because they took the truth (as they wanted it to be) and called it ultimate truth, instead of receiving the authentic truth in Jesus. When Jesus stood before Pilate, He proclaimed that He was born into this world to testify to the truth and that “all who are not deaf to truth listen to my voice.” (John 18:37, NEB)
Professor Catherine Keller at Drew University has stated that the Hebrew word for truth (emeth) means faithfulness or commitment. Therein lies the trouble with the truth: the truth claims the lives of its believers. Dr. Keller also says that we do not own the truth, we belong to it, we are immersed in it. (Might that suggest a baptismal understanding?) Belonging to truth, being faithful to truth, by necessity declares that there is ultimate truth to which we are faithful. Ultimate truth does not depend on belief to be true. Ultimate truth is just there and cannot be denied. Even if there are other potential truth claims in play, that which is ultimately true remains the truth.
By definition, humanistic truth declares itself to be ultimate truth. People who orient themselves according to a humanistic perspective cannot hear ultimate theological truth, despite their claims to the contrary, because down deep they know that they cannot hold two ultimate truths at the same time. People who orient themselves according to theological truth know it to be ultimate truth, above and beyond the claims of humanism, yet they are also able to see what is good within humanism.
Jesus claims that truth leads to freedom. Truth from God indeed leads to the freedom of God’s love that forgives sin and transforms lives. So-called truth from man seeks a cultural approval that lasts for a while.
Pilate may have asked the correct question, “What is truth?,” for his time. But the better question for our time might well be, “To which truth do we belong?” The truth to which we belong — the truth that ultimately claims our lives, the truth in which we are immersed — will be the truth that we will listen to. Jesus said that the sheep follow the shepherd because they know his voice. (John 10:4)
North Carolina Christian Advocate, September 20, 2005
“FOLLOW ME!”
by Rev. Paul T. Stallsworth
[What follows was preached, on Easter IV (April 17), at St. Peter’s United Methodist Church of Morehead City, NC. It is an edited version of the “Homily of His Eminence Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger,” which was preached at the Funeral Mass of Pope John Paul II, at St. Peter’s Square, on April 8. This is a long-standing Wesleyan practice, for John Wesley himself often edited and employed the works of others, with the attribution required by his times, for the benefit of his people.]
1. Jesus said: “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep… No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord…this charge I have received from my Father.” (John 10:11,18, RSV here and following) Jesus Christ speaks of the Good Shepherd; and the Good Shepherd is Jesus Christ Himself. Even so, the Good Shepherd needs other, lesser but still important shepherds, for His sheep. With “Follow me!,” the Good Shepherd calls forth these other shepherds.
2. “Follow me!” (John 21:22) The Good Shepherd speaks these words to Peter. These two words are the last words spoken by the Good Shepherd, on earth, to Peter. Our Lord chooses Peter to shepherd His flock. But in shepherding the flock, Peter’s first responsibility is following, following the Good Shepherd Jesus Christ.
After hearing the Good Shepherd’s command, “Follow me!,” Peter obeys. In following the Good Shepherd, Peter feeds and tends the flock, the Church, in its earliest years.
3. Nearly 2,000 years after the Good Shepherd called Peter with “Follow me!,” he called Karol Jozef Wojtyla (voy-TEE-wah) with the same two words. Christ said “Follow me!” to Karol Wojtyla not once, but many times. Again and again, Wojtyla heard these words from Jesus Christ. By God’s grace, Wojtyla obeyed. And because Wojtyla faithfully followed the Good Shepherd, he became in God’s time a good and a great pope for the Roman Catholic Church, for the Church universal (including The United Methodist Church), and for the world.
4. “Follow me!”
At an early age, Karol Wojtyla lost his Christian mother to death. During his young adulthood, Karol lost his deeply devout father, to death. Despite these numbing tragedies, this young Polish man gave himself completely to Jesus Christ, as Jesus’ mother Mary had. Totus tuus. Totally yours.
5. “Follow me!”
As a young student, Karol Wojtyla was thrilled by literature, the theater, and poetry. Working in a chemical plant, surrounded and threatened by the Nazi terror, he heard the voice of our Lord say, “Follow me!” In this unusual setting, Karol read books of philosophy and theology, and he entered an underground seminary to prepare for the priesthood. After World War II, he completed his theological studies. On November 1, 1946, Karol was ordained into the Roman Catholic priesthood.
When writing about the priesthood, which he dearly loved, Karol referred often to three passages from The Gospel According to St. John. In these three verses, we see the heart and soul of John Paul II.
First verse: “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide…” (John 15:16) He went untiringly everywhere — like a latter-day John Wesley — in order to bear fruit, fruit that lasts. Rise! Let Us Be on Our Way! is the title of his next-to-last book. With “Rise, let us be on our way!,” words spoken by Jesus to His disciples in the Garden of Gethsemane, Karol Wojtyla roused others from a lazy faith, from the sleep into which all disciples can fall.
Second verse: “The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.” (John 10:11) Karol was a priest to the last, for he offered his life to God, for his flock, and for the entire human family, in a daily self-sacrifice — especially amid the sufferings of his final months. In this way, he became one with Christ, the Good Shepherd who loves His sheep.
Third verse: “As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you; abide in my love.” (John 15:9) Karol Wojtyla tried to meet as many people as possible, to forgive and open his heart to all (even to his attempted murderer), and to tell us that by abiding in the love of Christ we learn, in the school of Christ, the art of true love.
6. “Follow me!”
In July of 1958, Father Karol Wojtyla began a new stage in his journey of following the Lord. Along with a group of young people who loved canoeing, he had gone to the lakes for his annual vacation. On the trip he took a letter from the Catholic Primate of Poland. The letter appointed Father Karol Wojtyla an auxiliary Bishop of Krakow. As a bishop, Wojtyla would have to leave the academic world, leave his beloved ministry with young people, leave his intellectual work of striving to understand and interpret mankind, and leave his project to communicate the Christian view of man to the world. All this must have seemed to this priest like losing his very self, losing what had become his identity and vocation.
“Follow me!” Karol Wojtyla accepted the appointment, for he heard in the Church’s call the voice of Christ. And he remembered the truth of the Lord’s words: “Whoever seeks to gain his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life will preserve it.” (Luke 17:33) He never wanted to make his own life secure, to keep it for himself. He wanted to give of himself unreservedly, to the very last moment, for Christ and for us. His love of words became an essential part of his episcopal ministry and gave new vitality, new urgency, new attractiveness to the preaching of the Gospel — even when hard-to-hear truths were served.
7. “Follow me!”
In October of 1978, Karol Cardinal Wojtyla once again heard the voice of the Lord. To the Lord’s question, “Karol, ‘Do you love me?,’ (John 21:17)” the Archbishop of Krakow, Cardinal Wojtyla, answered from the depths of his heart: “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (John 21:17) Cardinal Wojtyla became Pope John Paul II, and the love of Christ remained the dominant force in the new pope’s life. Anyone who saw him pray, who heard him preach, knows that. Thanks to following faithfully the Good Shepherd, he was able to bear a burden which is beyond human abilities: that of being the shepherd of Christ’s flock, His universal Church.
8. “Follow me!”
Even unto death. Jesus asked St. Peter to enter into the Paschal Mystery, into death and resurrection. Jesus warned Peter: “Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you girded yourself and walked where you would; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go.” (John 21:18)
In his earlier years of being pope, John Paul II — still young, still full of energy — went to the very ends of the earth: he made 104 trips abroad to 129 countries. Later in life, he increasingly entered into the communion of Christ’s sufferings. He understood: “Another will gird [fasten or bind] you…” In communion with the suffering Lord, tirelessly and with renewed intensity, John Paul II proclaimed the Gospel.
9. None of us can ever forget how in that last Easter Sunday of his life, John Paul II, marked by suffering, came once more to the window of the Apostolic Palace. One last time he gave his blessing urbi et orb (to the city and the world). We can be sure that our beloved Pope is standing today at the window of the Father’s house, that he sees us and blesses us.
The soul of John Paul II now sees and blesses the Good Shepherd. Again and again during his years on this earth, Karol Wojtyla heard the Good Shepherd beckon: “Follow me!” Jesus Christ led. Karol Wojtyla followed. Thanks be to God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit!
“Follow me!” Our Lord beckons us, today.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dr. Sheppard is the pastor of Hope Mills United Methodist Church in Hope Mills, NC.
North Carolina Christian Advocate, September 6, 2005
ON HOMOSEXUALITY:
NO ONE IS TEACHING FOR THE CHURCH
by Rev. Paul T. Stallsworth
At the end of the summer of 2005, The United Methodist Church is dealing with the issue of homosexuality in three different venues.
First, there is the case of Reverend Beth Stroud. A clergywoman from Pennsylvania, Rev. Stroud publicly admitted that she is a practicing homosexual. At the end of a church trial, she lost her clergy credentials. An appeal decision reinstated her credentials. And in October, the Judicial Council, which is United Methodism’s Supreme Court, will render the final decision on Rev. Stroud.
Second, there is the case of Reverend Edward Johnson. Rev. Johnson, at South Hill United Methodist Church in Virginia, refused to receive into church membership a practicing homosexual, who is in a relationship with another man and who is unrepentant. Because of his refusal, a complaint was filed against Rev. Johnson, and it was decided in June that he would be removed from pastoral responsibilities and placed on an “involuntary leave of absence.”
And third, there is the matter of “Hearts on Fire,” a conference sponsored by Reconciling Ministries Network (RMN). According to RMN’s mission statement, “Reconciling Ministries Network is a national grassroots organization that exists to enable full participation of people of all sexual orientations and gender identities in the life of The United Methodist Church, both in policy and practice.” Furthermore, “[at ‘Hearts on Fire’ w]e hope to gather 400 UMs who will envision The United Methodist Church truly opening itself to the gifts and graces of the LGBT [Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender] community.” (www.rmnetwork.org)
With the aforementioned stimulating so much conversation throughout the denomination these days, now is the time for an attempt at some clear thinking on The United Methodist Church and homosexuality.
It is a given that United Methodism has teaching, substantive moral-theological teaching, on homosexuality. The 2004 General Conference, like many General Conferences before it, fine tuned that teaching. This teaching is now contained in The Book of Discipline (2004). It reflects what historic Christianity has taught, Biblically and Traditionally, about homosexuality through the ages.
As is well known, the Church’s teaching on homosexuality is not accepted by all United Methodists. In other words, regarding homosexuality, some United Methodist clergy and laity are in dissent. This is not an unusual situation. Every issue confronting the Church — indeed, every doctrine of the Church — generates dissent. That is the way it has always been; that is the way it is; that is the way it always will be. Again, Church teaching is never accepted by all the clergy and all the laity. That is a sociological fact. But the pattern of teaching and dissent remains: the Church has teaching; and the Church allows and even welcomes dissent over against its authoritative teaching, for the sake of furthering the engagement and clarifying the teaching.
Now, with regard to homosexuality, how is this teaching-then-dissent pattern playing out in the life of United Methodism? It appears that our denomination teaches on the matter of homosexuality mainly around the time of General Conference. The debates (before and during the conference), the votes on petitions, and the final wording of adopted petitions are duly reported in the denominational press. Then the language of adopted petitions is printed in the newly minted Book of Discipline. There, in large part, the teaching ends. (It resumes about four years later, as preparations begin for yet another General Conference.)
What follows each General Conference is a new round of church trials in which those in dissent search for ways around the denomination’s doctrine and discipline on homosexuality. In addition, various educational events, sponsored by dissenters, are organized to advocate against the Church’s teaching on homosexuality. That is, after each General Conference, it appears that those in dissent take the offensive against the Church’s teaching, doctrine, and discipline. All these activities in dissent are covered rather exhaustively in the denominational and daily media. That is, the position of dissent is constantly dissenting in public. Only a few paragraphs in a book — The Book of Discipline — are left to teach for the Church.
Question: What is missing from this picture? Answer: Engaging, clear, forthright, comprehensive, authoritative teaching on what The United Methodist Church believes about homosexuality. The Council of Bishops does not provide such teaching. Few bishops in their episcopal areas, if any, do this. Agency executives do not do this. Most seminary professors do not do this. One might say that The Book of Discipline is left humbly to offer up its simple, rules-oriented paragraphs on homosexuality to those who are willing to inquire and read and quote.
Yes, The United Methodist Church has teaching on homosexuality. But that teaching needs to be taught — indeed, that teaching needs to be winsomely asserted — for the good of the whole church. And teaching involves more, much more, than simply quoting the pertinent paragraphs from The Book of Discipline. Such teaching involves, at a minimum, providing the Biblical and Traditional reasoning that stands behind and with our disciplinary paragraphs on this moral matter.
If this teaching takes place, when this teaching takes place, The United Methodist Church will regain some trust and confidence in the Church’s faith. Then the dissent against Church teaching will not seem nearly as threatening to the larger denomination.
North Carolina Christian Advocate, August 16, 2005
PUTTING POLITICS IN ITS PLACE
by Rev. Paul T. Stallsworth
The House of Delegates, of the North Carolina Council of Churches (NCCC), met on May 10 at the Lutheran Church of the Epiphany in Winston-Salem. As usual, Rev. George Reed, the Executive Director of the NCCC, excelled in making sure that the entire meeting — including the worship service, the program, the luncheon, and the business session — ran like clockwork. The United Methodist delegates in attendance were made particularly proud, during the luncheon, by the presentation of the NCCC’s Distinguished Service Award to The Reverend Joe Mann, of the North Carolina Conference and Duke Endowment. The award recognizes that Rev. Mann’s ecumenical commitments run deep and wide.
The Reverend Dr. James Dunn provided the sermon for the worship service and the lecture for the morning program. With conviction seasoned by experience, he preached and lectured (including a question-and-answer period after the lecture). Dr. Dunn is currently the Professor of Christianity and Public Policy at Wake Forest Divinity School in Winston-Salem. For years, he had served as the Executive Director of the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs in Washington, DC.
Dr. Dunn’s lecture was entitled “Two Things You Must Talk About: Politics and Religion.” Not surprisingly, Dr. Dunn’s lecture followed the mandate of its title: it addressed politics and religion in a most straightforward way. In addition, his sermon, which preceded his lecture, willingly engaged the politics of the day.
The lecture and the sermon took sides in today’s arguments over politics, culture, and religion, which are sometimes called the “culture wars” (James Davison Hunter). Again and again, on issue after issue, they sided with the progressives of our political sphere. They repeatedly mentioned the “extremists on the Right.” They questioned the intelligence of conservatives and Republicans, and spoke admiringly of Jim Wallis, Norman Lear, and People for the American Way. They challenged the idea of “faith-based initiatives.” The sermon asserted that the Religious Right had made “God a public mascot,” and evaluated the claim of “America’s Judeo-Christian heritage” as nothing but “political balderdash.” And the lecture recalled a statement that conjectured, politically speaking, the United States of 2005 is near Germany of 1933.
In general, the sermon and the lecture argued that the Religious Right and the Republicans are mistaken, misguided, and wrong in their politics and religion. At the same time, the sermon and the lecture enthusiastically approved the Religious Left and the Democrats. As stated earlier, these presentations vigorously took sides in the “culture wars.”
(Three points of interest might be mentioned here. First, very seldom, if ever, was the word liberal used during these presentations. The word progressive was preferred. One might wonder why. Second, the sermon and the lecture advanced a set of political ideas that is most actively promoted in American political life by those with a clearly secularist agenda. So if the Religious Right has its fundamentalists, the Religious Left is closely associated with secularists. And third, during the program a political story was told. A politico, several years ago, lamentably listed a large number of left-of-center United States Senators who would soon be gone from the Senate. This comment was then offered with sadness and alarming foreboding: “The moral center of the United States Senate has changed…” But of course, one might well reply. “The moral center of the United States Senate” is always changing. In fact, it changes every two years, every time congressional elections are held. Furthermore, the Church’s public moral teaching is, or should be, much more stable and substantial and enduring than “the moral center of the United States Senate.”)
A critical review of Dr. Dunn’s sermon and lecture would raise a few questions for extended response and even debate: Did this sermon and this lecture place American politics above Christian theology? That is, did the politics of these presentations determine their theology? And does the placement of American politics above Christian theology make the visible demonstration of Christian unity nearly impossible?
Some on the Religious Right indeed appear to put their politics above their religion. They are opposed by some on the Religious Left who do the same thing: they place their political concerns above their theological commitments. What then follows are red-hot battles between the Religious Right and the Religious Left — which include name calling, questioning of character, insinuating of ignorance, and other unpleasantries with which the American public is all too familiar.
The challenge facing the North Carolina Council of Churches, the various denominations, the many congregations, and Christians — but especially the NCCC, because of its ecumenical reason for being — is to remember, and to live by, the truth that politics is not the most important thing in the world. The Kingdom of God, revealed especially in Jesus Christ, is what is most important. When and only when that is recalled, Christians can then engage in serious, respectful political discussion, even debate, that just might set an example in political discourse that could benefit the larger society.
But the first step is to put politics in its place. If that is not done, Christian disunity and political warfare will be sure to continue.
North Carolina Christian Advocate, July 19, 2005
ANNUAL CONFERENCE NEEDS TO TAKE RESOLUTIONS SERIOUSLY
by Rev. Paul T. Stallsworth
The 2005 session of the North Carolina Annual Conference has come and gone. Each time our annual conference (or any other annual conference, for that matter) gathers, things are learned about the gathered conference. This year the clergy and lay delegates learned that resolutions and the resolutionary process are not as popular as they used to be.
Resolutions considered and approved by the annual conference, it should be remembered, are “official expressions” (to use a phrase from The Book of Discipline [Paragraph 510.2a] on General Conference resolutions) of the will of the annual conference for the year to come. So by approving resolutions, the annual conference officially expresses its position on pressing injustices and other matters of the day, and thereby witnesses beyond the conference itself.
The annual conference’s consideration of resolutions is always one of the high points of the annual-conference session. The deliberations over, and decisions on, the resolutions are interesting, informative, and unpredictable. In those deliberations and decisions, clergy and laity work (and work hard) to hear God’s Word, to sense God’s leading, to discern God’s will, to consider where the Church’s faith should have public expression. Because participants are bound together by the baptismal covenant, and because the Holy Spirit abides throughout the annual conference, the resolutionary deliberations and decisions by United Methodists are usually a strong sign of conference unity and vitality.
But things seem to have changed. According to the events of the 2005 Annual Conference, it appears that some in the conference want to restrict the resolutionary process. Please consider the following five pieces of evidence.
First, the daily agenda of the 2005 Annual Conference scheduled Report 1 — from the Committee on Resolutions and Reference, which formally presents resolutions to the annual conference — for late Thursday afternoon, on the first full day of conference. Report 2 was slated for Saturday morning, just before the Worship and Sending Forth. Since the reports of the Committee on Resolutions and Reference were not orders of the day on the agenda, they could be delayed as needed. (And delayed Report 1 was — especially by the disproportionately lengthy debate over the location of the 2006 Annual Conference. Was that issue really that important?) Not surprisingly, the dinner hour and the end of conference served as boundaries beyond which the resolutions could not be considered. Result: the time for resolutionary discourse and decision-making was severely limited.
Second, most debate on the 2005 resolutions occurred on Friday night between 10:00 and 11:00. At that late hour, the conference floor had depopulated and the delegates’ energy level had dipped. It was not a time for optimal consideration of the resolutions at hand.
Third, the resolutions not acted on on Friday night were, on Saturday morning, bunched by motion and referred by vote to the Board of Church and Society. In doing so, the conference suggested that it was tired of resolutions and deliberation over them.
Fourth, the Committee on Resolutions and Reference proposed, and the annual conference passed, a rules change (beginning with the 2006 Annual Conference) that limits the number of resolutions that can be brought, by an individual delegate and by an “unofficial organization,” to one.
And fifth, the motion was made, on Saturday morning, to eliminate altogether the consideration of resolutions from the 2006 Annual Conference. Lengthy debate was required to make sure this motion failed.
Why have resolutions become so unpopular in the annual conference? Because they require some very hard work from the conference delegates. Because some United Methodists are tired of theological and moral debate in the church. Because what can be called the Norman Vincent Peale wing (or the Rodney [“Why-can’t-we-just-get-along?”] King wing) of The United Methodist Church, which wants the positive always to erase the negative, has become much more aggressive of late. And because some United Methodists do not want to show forth any disagreement to the world.
Yes, some really are concerned that disagreements at annual conference will make United Methodists look as divided as Americans in general. Well, to be honest, there are some serious disagreements in United Methodism today. There are some serious divisions in our denomination and in our annual conference. But the honest way to handle those disagreements and divisions is through a respectful, resolutionary process, in the annual conference, in which the participants strive to speak the truth in love to one another. That, in itself, can be a strong witness. That, in itself, can be a great and a good witness to the larger Church and the larger society. That, in itself, can be a sign of the Kingdom of God.
But for that to take place, conference time and energy — sufficient time and energy — must be given to resolutionary matters. In annual conferences to come, let us make sure that the resolutionary process is protected and sufficient time for resolutionary discourse is allotted. This will help to establish the most faithful, annual-conference witness to the greater Church and to the larger world.
THE REAL JESUS
Rev. Paul T. Stallsworth
During divinity-student days in the 1970s, we were encouraged by a theology professor to read the New Testament’s gospels apart from the Church’s creeds. That would give us, he claimed, a more accurate understanding of who Jesus really was. More recently, there have been attempts to remove Jesus from the Bible, then from Christianity, to discover who he really was.
Not surprisingly, more than a little mischief flowed from these adventures in interpreting Jesus. In The Kingdom of God in America (1937), H. Richard Niebuhr summarized, in advance, much of the theological mischief that was to come: “a God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.”
But along came Ash Wednesday 2004 and the release of Mel Gibson’s movie “The Passion of the Christ.” In this film, Jesus most definitely has a cross a bear, a cross that will bear him to his horrible death. This Jesus contrasts sharply with more recent versions.
According to Kenneth L. Woodward, a contributing editor at Newsweek, “Mr. Gibson’s film leaves out most of the elements of the Jesus story that contemporary Christianity now emphasizes. His Jesus does not demand a ‘born again’ experience, as most evangelists do, in order to gain salvation. He does not heal the sick of exorcise demons, as Pentecostals emphasize. He doesn’t promote social causes, as liberal denominations do. He certainly doesn’t crusade against gender discrimination, as some feminists believe he did, nor does he teach that we all possess an inner divinity, as today’s nouveau Gnostics believe. One cannot imagine this Jesus joining a New Age sunrise Easter service overlooking the Pacific.
“Like Jeremiah, Jesus is a Jewish prophet rejected by the leaders of his own people, and abandoned by his handpicked disciples. Besides taking an awful beating, he is cruelly tempted to despair by a Satan whom millions of church-going Christians no longer believe in, and dies in obedience to a heavenly Father who, by today’s standards, would stand convicted of child abuse. In short, this Jesus carries a cross that not many Christians are ready to share.
“It is easy, of course, to contrast third-millennium Christian mores with the story of Christ’s Passion. Like other Americans, Christians want desperately to know that they are loved, in the words of the old Protestant hymn, ‘just as I am.’ But the love of God, as Dorothy Day liked to put it, ‘is a harsh and dangerous love’ that requires real transformation. It is not the sort imagined by today’s spiritual seekers who are ‘into’ Asian religions.” (New York Times, 02/25/04)
Stephen Prothero, the author of American Jesus: How the Son of God Became a National Icon, reinforces Woodward’s critique and points the way forward: “In one striking scene, the Virgin Mary and Mary Magdalene sop onto linens the blood left behind after Jesus’ scourging at the hands of sadistic Roman centurions. Odd that these women care more about Jesus’ blood than Mr. Gibson seems to care about his character. Plainly this is not the American way. But for Mr. Gibson, one suspects, that is the point. To be a Christian, he seems to be saying, is not to enter into a personal relationship with Jesus but to enter through the ordinances [especially the Sacrament of Holy Communion] of the Church into the mystery of the sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood. It is not to love a lovely Jesus but to worship a battered Christ.” (Wall Street Journal, 02/27/04)
“The Passion of the Christ,” Woodward and Prothero suggest, should jolt Christians into remembering that the real Jesus is not found in any of the allegedly relevant updates. Instead, the real Jesus is discovered in, revealed to, and received from the Church. More specifically, the real Jesus comes to us through the Church’s Scripture and creeds, Sacraments and faithful worship.
This pastor watched Gibson’s movie on the Saturday evening before Lent I. On the big screen, Jesus was vividly and brutally portrayed as the sacrifice for the sins of the world. His broken body and shed blood, with several references to the Last Supper and Holy Communion, filled the screen, and the hearts and minds of the viewers. The “harsh and dangerous love” of God was lifted up for all to see.
After viewing the film, this pastor and many other pastors were reminded of the awesome privilege of offering the real Jesus to congregations the next morning. The real Jesus, not a supposedly relevant substitute.
MISSIONS: THE SELDOM-TOLD STORY
by Rev. Joseph P. Gouverneur
North Carolina Christian Advocate, May 27, 2003
In his Why Christianity Must Change or Die, Bishop John Spong, once the Episcopalian Bishop of Newark, attacks traditional, Biblical doctrine. According to Bp. Spong, the historic teachings of Christianity must be altered or deleted for the Church to survive.
It might be asked: at what church is Bp. John Spong looking? He is looking at his own church in Newark, but he is ignorant of the growth of Christianity in Nigeria and Nepal. As Penn State historian Phillip Jenkins argues in The New Christendom, there is an exponential growth of Christianity in what he calls the “Global South” — South America, Sub-Saharan Africa, and large parts of Asia.
During a recent mission trip to the West African nation of Ghana, I was amazed by what is happening there. Recently, massive numbers of Africans — Muslims and others involved in tribal or animistic religions — have come to faith in Christ. It is estimated that the equivalent of a new denomination is established somewhere in Africa every week. Furthermore, it is projected that, by the middle of this century, there will be more Christians in Sub-Saharan Africa than any other part of the world. In the 1980s so many people in Ghana had become Christian that Guinness, the largest brewery in the world, began producing a non-alcoholic beverage called Malta to sell to the non-drinking Christians. And there is the somewhat humorous attempt, by Ghanan believers, to integrate their new found faith with the market place — by naming their businesses with Christian references (e.g., Seek Ye Supermarkets).
Why do we hear so little of this grand shift in the global balance of Christianity? Part of the reason lies in responses from some western denominational leaders. For example, at the 1998 Lambeth Conference in London, a number of Anglican bishops from the United States and Europe attempted to pass a resolution in support of homosexuality. Because of the orthodox position of African and Asian bishops, who argue from the authority of Scripture, the resolution was heavily defeated. Speaking for bishops from the West, Bishop Spong postulated that the African bishops had “moved out of animism into a very superstitious kind of Christianity.” Bp. Spong and his cultural colleagues displayed that they have little understanding of the issues in play.
This gets to the heart of the issue: most of the current growth of the Church is occurring in the Global South, and it is evangelical, charismatic, and largely socially conservative. For decades, many western Christians had looked forward to the day when Christianity would flourish in the South. Furthermore, they had held the assumption that it would look like large segments of the Church in the West — that is, it would be liberal, anti-supernatural, and committed to a progressive social agenda. However, the opposite has occurred.
As a pastor serving a British Methodist Church in London, I witnessed a strange paradox. At a British Methodist Annual Conference, it was reported that, if the current rate of decline continues, British Methodism will probably survive only until 2015. Historic London churches, such as Wesley’s Chapel and Westminster Central Hall, host only small groups of worshipers on Sundays — including a fair number of American United Methodist pastors on Wesleyan Pilgrimage. However, in the poorest neighborhood in London, the largest church in Britain, Kingsway International, has a congregation of 7.000 led by Pastor Matthew Ashimolowo, a Nigerian who recently converted to Christianity from Islam.
While not endorsing all of the practices of Christianity in the Global South, we cannot ignore the fact that the Christianity of the Global South is changing the face of Christianity even locally. My Ghanan friend, Pastor Elvis Acheampong, is establishing congregations in northern Virginia and recently in Greensboro. His congregations are dynamic, multi-racial, and committed to the communication of the Gospel in a way that is fresh and yet faithful to historic Christianity.
So often, such evangelicals are criticized, with the label of “paternalistic missions,” for seeking to win non-Christians to Christ. So it was in 2000, when at a London conference on global missions, every representative made it clear that they had repented from earlier positions linking the Gospel with western culture. However, the real paternalistic position is found in those like Bp. Spong.
The basic question is how we are increasing our awareness of the present shift within global Christianity. And how we western Christians, as churches and as individuals, are obeying the Great Commission.
Do we, with John Wesley, say, “the world is our parish,” or is it now, “the parish is my world?”
Rev. Gouverneur is the pastor of Hawkins-Tabor United Methodist Charge in the Rocky Mount District. Also, he is completing his Ph.D. at the University of Sheffield in the United Kingdom.
HOLY ABORTION?
by Rev. Paul T. Stallsworth
North Carolina Christian Advocate, July 22, 2003
For over thirty years this recently released book, Holy Abortion? A Theological Critique of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (Wipf and Stock, Eugene, OR), or one like it, has needed to be written. Why? Because for over thirty years The United Methodist Church has been officially associated with the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC), its predecessor organization the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights (RCAR), and their radical pro-abortion ideology. At long last, Holy Abortion? tells the truth about RCRC and its pro-abortion program.
RCRC is truly pro-abortion. That is, RCRC is not pro-choice: it does not see abortion as a tragic event. Rather, RCRC is pro-abortion: it understands abortion, for any reason and in any circumstance, to be a good.
Having read through tens of RCRC documents, the authors of Holy Abortion? — Dr. Michael J. Gorman, a United Methodist and the Dean of the Ecumenical Institute, and Ann Loar Brooks, an educator with a master’s degree in theology — uncover six foundational tenets of RCRC’s pro-abortion thinking. RCRC’s six tenets, according to Gorman and Brooks, are: (1) “[an] absolute, God-given sexual freedom, including abortion rights;” (2) “the isolated woman or teen as sovereign moral agent;” (3) “the trivialization of the moral status of unborn human life;” (4) “the legitimacy of abortion as birth control;” (5) “the holiness of abortion;” and (6) “a pro-choice God, attested in Scripture, who blesses all decisions.”
Then Gorman and Brooks move on to prove that RCRC’s pro-abortion position contradicts the official positions of its affiliated mainline Protestant denominations — including the pro-choice position of The United Methodist Church. Again, RCRC’s pro-abortion position is shown to conflict with United Methodism’s pro-choice position.
Gorman and Brooks state: “The United Methodist Church, then, in contrast to RCRC, affirms its reluctance to approve abortion, its belief in ‘the sanctity of unborn human life,’ and the necessity of assistance in decision making. It explicitly rejects abortion as birth control and places restrictions on its being considered at all (‘tragic conflicts of life with life’). Partial-birth abortion is permitted only in extreme cases…”
“Furthermore, on the subject of sex, the Discipline says that ‘[a]lthough all persons are sexual beings whether or not they are married, sexual relations are only clearly affirmed in the marriage bond.’ This, too, is in stark contrast to RCRC’s position.
“In sum, then, The United Methodist Church rejects RCRC’s approval of unfettered sexual relations and abortion as birth control; it sanctifies what RCRC trivializes (unborn human life); and it insists on the Christian tradition as the context for decision making. Although this position hardly rules out all abortions, it clearly does not reflect RCRC’s theology or ethics.” (p. 36)
Dr. Gorman and Ms. Brooks are not content to establish that social teaching of The United Methodist Church is in conflict with the ideology of RCRC. They also demonstrate that the Great Tradition of the Church catholic maintains consistent teaching that protects the unborn child and mother from abortion. This constant teaching is derived from Scripture, from the Church Fathers, from Karl Barth, from Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and from the leading theologians and philosophers of our time (including: The Most Reverend Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury; Professor Gilbert Meilaender, Valparaiso University; Professor John Milbank, University of Virginia; and The Reverend Professor Oliver O’Donovan, Oxford University).
Holy Abortion? — with careful scholarship and extensive footnotes — is an argument in the highest sense of the word. That is, this book attempts to persuade. It attempts to persuade by proposing the truth — the truth about the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice and the truth about historic Christianity’s teaching and practice on abortion. Now that this truth has been proposed, it, in time, might well become a truth that frees The United Methodist Church from its linkage to the pro-abortion RCRC and from its pro-choice position on abortion.
Rev. Stallsworth is the pastor of Broad Creek United Methodist Church in Newport and St. Peter’s United Methodist Church in Morehead City.
THE SIXTH COMMANDMENT AND THE CURRENT WAR
by Reverend Paul T. Stallsworth
North Carolina Christian Advocate, May 6, 2003
A version of the following sermon, entitled “The Sixth Commandment and the Current War,” was preached at Broad Creek and St. Peter’s United Methodist churches on the Third Sunday of Lent (March 23rd).
This week the United States led a coalition of nations into a war against the government of Iraq. The coalition governments did not require the permission of the Church to enter this war. After all, it is not the Church’s responsibility to put its stamp of approval (or disapproval) on every war fought by the nations of this world.
Instead, with regard to international politics, the Church’s regular responsibility is to help nations, their citizens and their leaders, to reason morally about war and peace. It is the Church’s duty to assist Christians and all people of good will in reckoning whether entering a particular war is moral or immoral, and in reckoning whether war-fighting in a particular way is moral or immoral. In other words, the Church helps Christians and others in fulfilling their vocations in the political and military and citizenship arenas. So the Church’s teaching should assist government officials and citizens to think more clearly and more deeply about the morality of war and peace.
In the last several months, the Church seems to have been more interested in standing against the coalition’s war in Iraq than in assisting citizens and political leaders to reason about this war. For weeks now, the Church has spoken against this war. Representatives of the Church — including United Methodist bishops, United Methodist agency executives, National Council of Churches spokesmen, World Council of Churches leaders, and John Paul II — have taken strong stands against this war. For example, Rev. Bob Edgar, a United Methodist pastor who heads the National Council of Churches, recently stated: “As a people of faith, we are one in our concern about the rush to war. We are one in our opposition to thinking war is an option.”
In American democracy, Christian leaders have the freedom to take such stands on matters related to American foreign and military policies. Our nation would never deny Church leaders, or anyone else, that freedom. Indeed, we Christians encourage our church leaders to speak, and to speak boldly, in the public arena about moral principles related to war and peace. At the same time, we Christians recognize that church leaders do not have special, revealed wisdom from God on what the coalition governments should be doing politically and militarily about Iraq. Though some Church leaders act and speak as if they have a revealed word from God against this war against the Iraqi government, they in fact do not. Therefore, entering the public square to address war-and-peace issues, church leaders should be more humble about particular policies. Drawing from the riches of the Christian tradition, they are charged to reason theologically and morally and persuasively to assist leaders and citizens.
WHAT WE RESIST, WHAT WE DO
At her best, the Church resists two forms of political activity that are tempting to some.
First, the Church stands against hate propaganda. In recent demonstrations against American entry into war, signs that read “Bush=Hitler” and “No War for Oil” have appeared. So-called peace demonstrators have defecated on the streets of San Francisco. This is an adolescent, if not infantile, form of politics. It is beneath serious citizenship. It is beneath serious politics. Hate propaganda does nothing to advance or deepen political-moral reasoning about war and peace. It does nothing but poison the politics of a nation. Therefore, the Church should never engage in this kind of political activity, nor should the Church approve or support this kind of political activity.
And second, the Church stands against holy war or jihad. That is, the Church stands against a blood-lusting, crusading mentality that would encourage one nation to obliterate an enemy nation, to blow an enemy nation to smithereens. The indiscriminate killing of noncombatant men, women, and children does not bother holy warriors. For holy warriors seek only total victory, no matter what the costs. Holy war is war without the rule of law, war without justice, war without conscience. The Church opposes this generalized killing of innocent human life. Always and everywhere, the Church stands against holy war.
That leaves the Church with two general alternatives to advance in its principled deliberations about war and peace: pacifism and just-war theory.
First, the Church can and should encourage pacifism. Pacifism involves the refusal to use armed force. This form of Christian witness is becoming very popular in the churches today. These days Professor Stanley Hauerwas, of Duke Divinity School, is a leading voice of Christian pacifism.
And second, the Church can and should encourage just-war thinking. Just-war thought is a way of reasoning to discern which wars are just, and how just wars should be fought most justly. Just-war theory employs various criteria to consider and evaluate war efforts. Just-war theory attempts to keep military efforts under a rule of moral law and to guard a just war from transforming into holy war.
Both of these options — pacifism and just-war thought — are historic, moral traditions in the Church. Both pacifism and just-war theory are available, moral options to Christian leaders, soldiers, and citizens, and to others. Neither of these responses to matters related to war and peace can be considered “more Christian” than the other. The Church lives with this unresolved tension.
THE SIXTH COMMANDMENT
“You shall not kill.” (Exodus 20:13, RSV) This is the Sixth Commandment of the Ten Commandments. This is God’s commandment to the Church. The Sixth Commandment assumes that God is the Creator of the world, the Father of all humanity. Because God is the Father of each and every human being, Christians regularly refrain from killing other human beings.
According to the Church’s traditional understanding of the Sixth Commandment (e.g., “The Larger Catechism” from the Reformed tradition), Christians have a duty to protect other human beings, especially the weakest among us. That is, because of the Sixth Commandment, Christians have a responsibility, a duty, to defend the innocent. That means that in the Sixth Commandment God commands his people to protect innocent people from an aggressive intruder: so killing a murderous aggressor, as a last resort, is sadly approved for the sake of defending innocent people. This can apply to a Christian husband protecting his wife from a vicious intruder intending to murder. It can also apply to Christian soldiers assisting in protecting people from a dangerous, ruthless, aggressive dictator and his regime.
Again, the Sixth Commandment strictly forbids mindless, reckless, vicious killing. But for the sake of protecting innocent people, the Sixth Commandment allows, even demands, killing ruthless aggressors. That is, for Christians, human life can be taken if and only if the taking of those lives protects the lives of others who are weak and innocent.
THE PURPOSE OF POLITICS
The ultimate goal of domestic politics is protecting innocent human beings.
Likewise, in the politics among nations, the ultimate political goal is protecting innocent human beings. Internationally, this goal is achieved through the establishment of tranquillitas ordinis (the tranquility of order), as St. Augustine put it in The City of God. This imperfect peace, which falls far short of the peace of God’s Kingdom, comes from a political order that maintains a semblance of justice. To repeat: in international life, peaceful, just order serves the ultimate goal of protecting innocent human beings. Make no mistake, a peaceful, just order — the order of peace — is broken by an aggressor nation, by a nation that ruthlessly kills its own citizens.
With the Sixth Commandment in mind, Christians of the just-war persuasion — be they citizens or political-military leaders — should reason about when justice
s entry into a war, and about how such a war should be most justly fought. If war is to be entered and fought, it is entered and fought for one ultimate reason only: to protect and defend innocent human beings. That is the only Christianly justifiable reason why the allies opposed, fought, and defeated Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich in World War II.
This we Christians know: the first goal of national and international politics is the protection of the innocent.
This we Christians should reason about together: when a war will or will not advance the protection of the innocent. On pacifism and just-war theory, on political policies and military strategies, we Christians can and will disagree. But the goal remains the same for all Christians: defending the innocent.
THIS WAR
Now consider the coalition’s war against the Iraqi government. What follows is this pastor’s opinion. This is not a word from God. It is a word from George Weigel, a Roman Catholic moral theologian, who writes: “International terrorism of the sort we have seen since the late 1960s, and of which we had a direct national experience on September 11, 2001, is a deliberate assault, through the murder of innocents, on the very possibility of order in world affairs. That is why the terror networks must be dismantled or destroyed. The peace of order is also under grave threat when vicious, aggressive regimes acquire weapons of mass destruction — weapons that we must assume, on the basis of their treatment of their own citizens, these regimes will not hesitate to use against others. That is why there is a moral obligation to ensure that this lethal combination of irrational and aggressive regimes, weapons of mass destruction, and credible delivery systems does not go unchallenged. That is why there is a moral obligation to rid the world of this threat to the peace and security of all. Peace, rightly understood, demands it.” (“Moral Clarity in a Time of War,” First Things, January 2003) Furthermore, protection of the innocent demands it. For Christians, the Sixth Commandment demands it.
If the coalition’s war against Iraq keeps protection of the innocent as its goal and guide, this pastor will back the effort.
If the coalition’s war against Iraq turns into an unjust war, a holy war, against Iraq, this pastor will oppose the effort.
BEING CHRISTIAN CITIZENS
What about you? What do you think about these matters? How are you, as Christians, going to fulfill your citizenship responsibilities? Such responsibilities are a significant part of our obedience to the Lordship of Jesus Christ over this world.
However we respond to this matter at hand, Jesus Christ remains and will remain the Lord of all, the Lord of history. And at the end of history, at the consummation of this world, this same Jesus Christ will be the Judge of all. He will judge each of us. An essential part of our judgment will be whether we have assisted in protecting the innocent.
May God have mercy on this world, on Iraq, on the nations of the coalition, on the Church, and on us.
To respond to this article and continue the dialogue, please send your article to: St. Peter’s United Methodist Church/111 Hodges Street/ Morehead City, NC 28557.
CHRISTIAN UNITY AND INTERNATIONAL DIVISIONS
North Carolina Christian Advocate, April 8, 2003
by Reverend Eric Lindblade
The world situation is now perilous. U.S. Marines from the Cherry Point Air Station, which is located a half mile from my church, are being deployed to far-off places, and my community is somber these days. As the United States confronts the prospect of war against terror, how could an article about Christian unity possibly be relevant?
Perhaps the relevance is this: the Christian faith does not just speak to our current world situation, to the current issues of war and peace, but it dares to proclaim a broader, divine vision of wholeness and renewal for the whole world. The Christian faith dares to dream of a time when the entire world will live in reconciled and merciful relationships. While I do not expect to see this hope fulfilled in my lifetime, we, as Christians, are called to remind the world that this hope exists because of God’s eschatological promises.
A besetting problem among Christians, however, is that we ourselves are not unified. There are denominations too numerous to mention, and it is sometimes difficult to discern unity even within single denominations and communions. If Christians are not reconciled to each other, then how can we possibly proclaim the hope of a reconciled world?
Even as the ecumenical movement has sought unity among denominations, the differences between and within churches have seemed too great to overcome. However, there is reason for optimism. Having attended ecumenical conferences for almost two decades, I am sensing a welcome new direction in conversations about Christian unity.
Dr. Walter Kasper, who in times past has been the chief ecumenical officer for the Vatican, presented his views at the 2002 National Workshop on Christian Unity in Cleveland. As a Roman Catholic, Dr. Kasper presents views that are especially important in the ecumenical community, since the Catholic-Protestant divide would seem to be the greatest.
In an age in which Christians are still very much divided, he invited us to find unity in a shared heritage of martyrdom. Whatever our doctrinal differences, we share people who in ages past, and even today, have given their very lives for the sake of Christ.
Dr. Kasper also expressed his view that true Christian community can be found outside the Catholic Church. “Christ can be found in imperfect churches,” he explained. Lest we detect in this remark an ecclesiastical arrogance, he also noted that the Roman Catholic Church itself is imperfect. Like every other church, it is “pilgrim and sinful.” The wonder is that the Spirit of Christ still moves even within the imperfections.
The hope in all this is that recent ecumenical conversation, as exemplified by Dr. Walter Kasper, is seeking to find unity not in structure or polity or political agreement, but at a deeper level. What binds us together ultimately is not a carefully crafted paper that outlines areas of agreement, but the Spirit of Christ to which every church in a unique way bears witness and for which believers in every age have been willing to give their very lives.
This is a somber and serious approach to Christian unity. And it reminds us that, as Christians begin to live as one and to recognize the Spirit of Christ living in the difference denominations and communions, then we can dare to dream again of the world to come in which all will live in harmony.
For right now, I am thankful for the Marines who attempt to protect us from some enemies of civilization. But I still dare to dream of a world in which the unified, undivided voice of Christians inspires a unity among the churches and among the nations. And just maybe, I dare to believe that we are taking some steps, even if small and tentative, in that direction.
Rev. Lindblade is the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Havelock and the chair of the North Carolina Conference’s Christian and Interfaith Unity Council.
WHY I LEFT THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH
by Mr. Rob King
North Carolina Christian Advocate, March 25, 2003
Last fall, after several theological controversies that rocked The United Methodist Church (especially Bishop Sprague’s open declaration of his heterodox beliefs), as an elder in the Western North Carolina Conference, I felt compelled to turn in my ministerial orders. Out of deep respect and profound gratitude for the many wonderful United Methodist Christians in North Carolina, I offer these brief reflections on why I withdrew from the conference and left the denomination.
The recent disclosure of the problematic beliefs of Chicago’s Bp. Sprague, such as his questioning of the actual Resurrection of Jesus Christ, greatly disheartened countless United Methodists. However, it is oversimplifying to attribute my departure to the views of a single errant bishop. Throughout the history of the Church, many ecclesial leaders have held similarly troubling theological positions, even to the point of heresy and apostasy. As our Lord teaches in the parable of the wheat and the tares, heresies and unfaithfulness will always be with the Church, and they will be fully sorted out only at the Last Judgment (Matthew 13:24-30 and 36-43).
Though one errant ecclesial leaders was not the cause of my departure, the Bp. Sprague debacle signals a much deeper problem afflicting not only United Methodism but also many other denominations and churches — namely, a breakdown in basic Christian teaching. To be sure, there are many faithful United Methodist Christians, renewal movements, and ecclesial leaders (seemingly more prevalent in the southern United States and in Texas). But traveling and interacting with United Methodists throughout the connection, I have not discovered a bold and vibrant evangelical-catholic Christian faith dedicated to winning the lost for Christ and to “spreading Scriptural holiness” to all parts of the world. Too often I have found dying congregations shaped largely by secular ideological agendas. Many of these ideological positions contain some truth — e.g., concern for the environment and for racial inclusiveness. However, such ideological positions have become so determinative and entrenched within The United Methodist Church that the basic message of Christian salvation, centering on Jesus Christ’s death and Resurrection to atone for the sins of the world, has been nearly abandoned in many United Methodist quarters. Consequently, when measured by the broad, historic evangelical-catholic-orthodox-pentecostal consensus of Christian teaching, parts of United Methodism are apparently no longer even functionally Christian, much less Wesleyan. Sadly, outside places like Union County, NC, where I pastorally served as a full-time deacon and elder, I have generally found that basic Christian teachings — such as the Great Commission (Matthew 28) and the exclusive role of Jesus Christ as mediator and Savior (Acts 4) — have been marginalized, if not jettisoned, by many in the denomination.
This leads to a final reason why it was necessary for me to leave United Methodism: the breakdown of basic Christian teaching concerning salvation leaves the world without hope. If the message of salvation through the actual death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, the “Word become flesh,” is either sublimated or replaced by ideological concerns, regardless how noble such concerns are, then the created world (including history and nature) is left imprisoned to death and decay. Granted, God’s saving purposes for the created order will not be thwarted by human unfaithfulness, but the key question facing United Methodism is this: what parts of the connection are salvageable for God to employ in accomplishing His saving purposes for the world?
Sadly, outside the “Bible Belt” of the southern United States (and the more rural parts of the Midwest), basic Christian teaching regarding salvation has been sufficiently abandoned in many United Methodist churches, seminaries, and agencies that the “official” United Methodist structure has become more of a hindrance than an aid in promoting Christianity’s evangelistic mission to the world. Sadder still, although various renewal groups within United Methodism continue to do faithful ministry — e.g., the Walk to Emmaus, Good News, etc. — given the entrenchment of more ideologically driven ecclesial leaders, the United Methodist connection as a whole may be beyond reform. As Jesus warned his first disciples in the Sermon on the Mount, “If salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything…” (Matthew 5:13, RSV) In many parts of American Methodism, this seems to apply.
This is the discernment that I have reached. This is why I left The United Methodist Church. This is why I have returned to full communion with Rome.
Rob King is a doctoral student in moral theology and the early church at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana.
THE TRUTH OF THE FAITH
by Rev. Paul T. Stallsworth
NC Christian Advocate February 11, 2003
In the January 14th column of Generous Orthodoxy, The Reverend Fred M. Reese, Jr. has made very thoughtful comments on and criticisms of The Confessing Movement within The United Methodist Church.
Rev. Reese is especially critical of The Confessing Movement and its friends for “calling the church to a brand of orthodoxy that is highly selective in its use of history, the Bible, and the witness of the present church hierarchy.” According to Rev. Reese, such efforts waste energies that could be more wisely spent on various causes — such as supporting those persecuted for the sake of justice and healing divisions in the church. Furthermore, he contends that the source of these allegedly arrogant attempts at orthodoxy is “fundamentalism [which] begins from the literalism of Biblical interpretation.”
To respond to Rev. Reese, one might recall that the Church catholic has been divinely graced with a faith. In The United Methodist Church, this faith of the Church is described and given boundaries by the Articles of Religion and the Confession of Faith, which are found in The Book of Discipline and are protected by the denomination’s Constitution. Furthermore, United Methodism’s bishops are charged “[t]o guard, transmit, teach, and proclaim” the faith of the Church (Discipline, par. 414.3). Clergy seeking full connection are asked these questions, among others: “8. Have you studied the doctrines of The United Methodist Church? 9. After full examination, do you believe that our doctrines are in harmony with the Holy Scriptures? 10. Will you preach and maintain them?” (Discipline, par. 327) And The Baptismal Covenant has the congregation “join together in professing the Christian faith, as contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments[,]” which is from The Apostles’ Creed.
Why, one might ask, is all this ecclesiastical energy given to the faith of the Church? Because a church assumes this faith — again, this faith and no other — is true.
As generations come and go, the Church’s faith is challenged by various theological fads and fashions on the right and on the left. Early in the twentieth century and on the right, fundamentalism arose to protect what it took to be fundamentals of the faith. Its defense of the faith drained the Church’s faith of its beauty and mystery. Liberalism on the left, in various forms, has taken prevailing cultural norms quite seriously and with them has reinterpreted the Church’s faith. Liberal reconstructions of the faith have been offered by existentialists, Dr. Peale, liberationists, and others.
When a church begins to proclaim and practice a faith that contradicts the historic faith of the Church, clergy, laity, and movements have a God-given responsibility to recall their church to the Church’s faith. That is what Luther attempted. That is what Wesley attempted. That is what Bonhoeffer and Barth attempted. And that is what The Confessing Movement within The United Methodist Church is attempting.
To be sure, and here one must accept the helpful caution offered by Rev. Reese, those who recall a church to the Church’s faith must do so in love and in humility. “For if we lash out too readily, too casually with a claim to truth, of if we rest too comfortably upon it, we run the risk not only of becoming authoritarian, but also of elevating some secondary and temporary factor to the status of absolute truth,” Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger of the Vatican has said. Therefore, “we must regard circumspection as a serious obligation with respect to any claim to truth, but we must also have the courage not lose hold of the truth, to stretch toward it and to accept it humbly and thankfully, whenever it is given to us.” (God and the World: Believing and Living in Our Time [Ignatius, 2002, pp. 34 and 35)
