• About Me

Kevin M. Watson

Kevin M. Watson

Category Archives: Article Review

Doctrine, Polity, and the UMNS

06 Wednesday Apr 2011

Posted by Kevin M. Watson in Article Review, links, Ministry

≈ 10 Comments

Tags

Book of Discipline, Doctrine, Polity, UMC

Controversy has swirled the last few weeks over Rob Bell’s newest book and Chad Holtz’s early departure from his student pastorate. Generally, the discussions related to both have seemed to me to generate a lot more heat than light. For the most part, a welcomed exception was a recent article by Heather Hahn of the United Methodist New Service. Hahn’s article shed significant light on Chad Holtz’s agreement to leave his student pastor appointment before the end of this appointment cycle. The article also reminded me that the blogosphere is sometimes as good at facilitating a rush to judgment as it is helpful in facilitating conversation and reflection among people.

In my view, the article took a turn for the worse when it came to the section “What the church teaches on hell.” This section was confusing and contained information that is inaccurate. Here is the section in its entirety:

The Book of Discipline, the denomination’s law book, does not contain any specific statement on heaven or hell.

However, the Evangelical United Brethren Church, one of the denomination’s predecessors, states in Article XII of its Confession of Faith: “We believe in the resurrection of the dead; the righteous to life eternal and the wicked to endless condemnation.”

The Confession, adopted in 1963, and the Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church from 1808 are both part of The United Methodist Church’s doctrinal standards in the Book of Discipline. As such, they cannot be altered — even by General Conference, the denomination’s top lawmaking body.

A particular belief about heaven or hell is not part of the denomination’s baptismal covenant, and therefore is not a requirement for membership in The United Methodist Church.

However, Holtz’s status as a pastor puts him in a different category, said the Rev. Taylor Burton-Edwards, director of worship resources at the United Methodist Board of Discipleship.

“This is where Chad got himself into trouble,” Burton-Edwards said. “He was articulating doctrine that was contrary to the doctrine of this church.”

Here are my main issues with this paragraph:

1. The paragraph first states that the Book of Discipline “does not contain any specific statement on heaven or hell.” But, as the very next sentence points out, one of the articles of the Confession of Faith reads, “We believe in the resurrection of the dead; the righteous to life eternal and the wicked to endless condemnation.” If “the wicked to endless condemnation” is not a way of signifying hell, then I’m not sure what it is referring to. Moreover, the first sentence of that article, which is not quoted in the UMNS article, makes it even more difficult to believe that this statement is not referring to heaven and hell: “We believe all men stand under the righteous judgment of Jesus Christ, both now and in the last day.” The Confession of Faith is not only in the Book of Discipline, it is part of the relatively small body of material considered to be standards of doctrine for United Methodists. Thus, the first statement of the UMNS paragraph is only accurate in so far as it literally means that the words heaven and hell don’t appear in this article from the Confession of Faith.

2. The article then says that the Confession of Faith and the Articles of Religion are “both part of The United Methodist Church’s doctrinal standards in the Book of Discipline. As such, they cannot be altered – even by the General Conference.” This is simply and obviously inaccurate. I think Hahn is referring to the fact that the Articles of Religion and Confession of Faith are protected by the first and second Restrictive Rules that say that General Conference “shall not revoke, alter, or change” them (see para 17, 18 of the Constitution in the BOD). In fact, the doctrinal standards can be altered and the Book of Discipline clearly describes the process for changing them. In order to change the Confession of Faith, General Conference would have to approve an amendment to the second Restrictive Rule by a “two-thirds majority of the General Conference present and voting” and because it is a Restrictive Rule a “three-fourths majority of all the members o the annual conferences present and voting” would be required (para 59). The Constitution certainly makes it very difficult to change the Confession of Faith or the Articles of Religion, but it is not true that they “cannot be altered.”

3. Next, the article says that members do not have to have “a particular belief about heaven or hell” because this is not “part of the denomination’s baptismal covenant, and therefore is not a requirement for membership in The United Methodist Church.” Let me say that I love the liturgy for baptism in the UM hymnal. I think it is profound. However, I do not think it is intended to be a comprehensive doctrinal statement. I am not familiar with the precedent that the baptismal covenant is a complete summary of the beliefs that The United Methodist Church expects prospective members to affirm. The sacrament of communion, for example, is not mentioned, so does that mean it is dispensable? Moreover, according to the BOD “a professing member of a local church may be charged with… (d) dissemination of doctrines contrary to the established standards of doctrine of The United Methodist Church” (para 2702.3.d), a clear reference to the Articles of Religion and the Confession of Faith. According to the BOD, the Articles of Religion and Confession of Faith are not an additional set of beliefs that clergy are supposed to adhere to. Rather, they are an expression of the “established standards of doctrine” of The UMC. Ultimately, I think the distinction between laity and clergy is a false distinction.

4. The quote from Taylor Burton-Edwards at the end of the section adds another layer of confusion. I think this quote is intended to be connected to the previous two sentences, where the distinction between what members have to believe and what clergy have to believe is made. However, the quote from Burton-Edwards contradicts the opening statement of this section. At the end of the article, it seems that the conclusion is that saying you don’t believe in hell is contrary to UM doctrine. So, what are we to do with the first sentence?

This may all seem rather uptight, and that may indeed be an occupational hazard of my line of work. I am convinced that we will have more helpful and productive conversations about issues like the UMNS article raises when we first clearly communicate the facts that can be agreed upon. Before we can discuss what we ought to believe or teach, we first need to be clear about what The UMC does teach. In the areas I have outlined, I fear that the UMNS has actually added confusion (unintentionally) to the conversation about what The UMC teaches about hell.

Update: I just reread an article published yesterday by Heather Hahn and UMNS that addresses some of the same issues as the article I am interacting with here. I noticed that the more recent article has a paragraph very similar to the one above, but it has corrected the mistakes I note in #2. This article reads, “Church doctrine can only be changed through a constitutional amendment process, which requires approval by a two-thirds majority of General Conference and a three-fourths majority of all annual conference members present and voting.” Kuddos to Hahn and UMNS for getting this part right the second time. (Though this part of the article still contains what I think is a very confusing opening line, “The Book of Discipline, The United Methodist Church’s law book, does not make specific mention of heaven or hell.”)

Published in Methodist Review

06 Thursday Jan 2011

Posted by Kevin M. Watson in Article Review, Life, Methodist History, Wesley

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Band meeting, Early Methodism, Methodist Review, Wesley

For those of you who may be interested in my research on the early Methodist band meeting, I have recently had an article published in Methodist Review an online, peer-reviewed academic journal. The title of my article is “Forerunners of the Early Methodist Band Meeting” and (as the title suggests) it explores the key antecedents that influenced the development of the Wesleyan Methodist bands.

If you want to read the article, you simply have to register with Methodist Review (which is free) and then download the PDF file. Once you register you have access to both vols. 1 and 2 of the journal and can download any or all of the articles that have been published.

Munger Place in the News

05 Wednesday Jan 2011

Posted by Kevin M. Watson in Article Review, Christian Living, Ministry

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Andrew Forrest, Mary Jacobs, Munger Place

Mary Jacobs of the United Methodist Reporter has recently written a feature piece on Munger Place Church. Munger is the church that my family has been involved with since it began the process of relaunching about a year ago. Public worship services began in October and have been ongoing since. I have been working on a longer post on Munger in my head for weeks now, but until I get it down here I will say that there are two things that I think Munger Place is doing that offer a model for The United Methodist Church.

First, campus pastor Andrew Forrest is serious about working to reclaim a contemporary equivalent of the early Methodist class meeting. Andrew calls these groups Kitchen Groups, and they are primarily focused on creating a space where people come together to talk about how their journey as followers of Jesus Christ is going – that is the primary purpose and activity of Kitchen Groups.

The second thing about Munger that really excites me is that it is providing an opportunity for a young person with obvious gifts to gain real ministry experience in a growing church. Andrew will graduate from Perkins School of Theology this spring, and as a result is in the process of applying for commissioning as an elder. It excites me that he is not just observing, but leading and even preaching at a church that had 700 people in attendance on its first week in worship and has consistently had 400 people a week in worship since. For all the talk about the need for younger clergy in the denomination, I don’t often see younger clergy given this kind of opportunity to thrive in ministry. If the UMC is serious about attracting the best and brightest of the up and coming generations, it will need to be willing to take risks on gifted people like Andrew.

You can visit Munger’s website here.

Comparisons between Emergent and Methodism

16 Tuesday Jun 2009

Posted by Kevin M. Watson in Article Review, links, Wesley

≈ 1 Comment

Dan Dick has a great post responding to the UM Portal article that I recently responded to on my blog. Dick’s post has challenged some of my initial excitement and helped me to think more critically about comparisons between emergent and early Methodism. I will continue thinking about this. While I do that, you should read about the United Methodist Emergent-cy.

Richard Foster’s Spiritual Formation Agenda and Methodism

04 Wednesday Feb 2009

Posted by Kevin M. Watson in Article Review, links, Ministry, Wesley

≈ Leave a comment

Check out Richard Foster’s article in Christianity Today about his three priorities for the next thirty years.

Foster believes that Celebration of Discipline(a classic) succeeded in reviving the conversation about the formation of the soul but was much less successful in making this incarnate in the experience of individual, congregational, and cultural life. Thus, Foster points to what he believes needs to happen in the next thirty years for this to come to life: Individual renewal, Congregational renewal, and Cultural renewal.

I was thrilled (though not surprised) to see that a major focus in his discussion of congregational renewal was on fellowship and communal formation. He explicitly refers to Philip Jacob Spener’s collegia pietatis and John Wesley’s society, class, band structure.

I think Foster is basically right on, many people seem to give lip service to the importance of spiritual formation – even communal formation, i.e., small group accountability – but there often seems to be a discrepancy between our words and our actions. The early Methodists understood the importance of communal structures for individual formation and accountability. May Methodists once again lead the way in showing how to “watch over one another in love” so that we are known not just for what we believe, but for what we do – for how we live.

A Helpful Perspective on Jeremiah Wright

07 Wednesday May 2008

Posted by Kevin M. Watson in Article Review

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Jason Byassee, Jeremiah Wright

I received a link to this article in an email today. One of the things that I thought was interesting is that it was a part of Christianity Today’s daily email, but it was written by Jason Byassee, who is assistant editor of the Christian Century. Byassee reminds evangelicals that Jeremiah Wright is evangelicals’ brother in Christ. The article is also honest about the ways that Wright’s recent actions have further damaged Obama’s efforts to secure the Presidential nomination of the Democratic Party. I found it to be thought provoking and worth the read, and I commend it to you.

General Conference, M.U.M., and the Quadrilateral

29 Tuesday Apr 2008

Posted by Kevin M. Watson in Article Review, Ministry, Wesley

≈ 19 Comments

Tags

General Conference, Mainstream United Methodists, Quadrilateral, Wesley, Wesleyan theology

I receive quite a bit of emails from a caucus group in the Oklahoma Conference named Mainstream United Methodists. I have recently received several emails from them about a handout that they were planning to distribute at General Conference. I have been away from my office for two weeks due to the birth of my first child, so I just got an email with final details about the handout and distribution of it. In the email there was an attachment that had the first page of the handout. Out of curiosity I opened the attachment. The front page prompted me to track down the entire handout, which you can find on the MUM website here.

As someone interested in Wesley Studies and preparing to enter SMU’s PhD program in the History of the Christian tradition in the Fall, and as someone who is a pastor in the Oklahoma Annual Conference, I wanted to comment on a few things that I think are inaccurate or unhelpful about this handout. My intent in doing this is not to start a fight or be disrespectful, but simply to clarify some misunderstandings about John Wesley and his relationship to the quadrilateral. I also want to clarify upfront that I am not involved in any other caucus group. My interest is not in defending the Institute on Religion and Democracy, which the handout is very critical of. Rather, my concern is that in reacting to things that MUM does not like about IRD, they seem to misrepresent Wesley in the interest of scoring points against IRD.

The main piece of the handout that I take issue with is the article found on the front page in the center column under a very well known picture of John Wesley, “Wesley’s Quadrilateral Under Attack.” It is not all that long, so for the sake of clarity and fairness, I will quote it in its entirety:

Wesley’s Quadrilateral is the center piece of United Methodism. Found in the introduction of Wesley’s forty-four sermons, it has provided a balanced doctrinal perspective for over 200 years.
Scripture, Tradition, Experience and Reason are valuable tools that guide inquiring minds and open the doors of spiritual mysteries. How can a pilgrim of the Way negotiate the treacherous waters of 21st century faith without them? These four guidelines help extract Biblical and theological truths for Jesus’ followers.
A growing number of scholars and theologians of various backgrounds tuck these “helps” in their tool belts. For Methodists, the Quadrilateral is a common denominator. It’s part of who United Methodists are. 2004 General Conference “editors” moved scripture to first and foremost on the quadrilateral. The next attempt will be to move to Sola-Scriptura, “Scripture Alone.” This is AWAY from John Wesley’s instructions.
As a layperson in Oklahoma recently exclaimed:
“Do away with Wesley’s Quadrilateral?
How could you do that?
The Quadrilateral is Methodism!”

There are a number of problems with the arguments made in this statement. The first is found in the title itself. The Quadrilateral cannot accurately be called “Wesley’s” because the quadrilateral was not created by John Wesley. In fact, Wesley himself never used the term. This is a not controversial, but is a plain fact that all respected Wesley scholars recognize. The term quadrilateral was coined, in relation to contemporary United Methodism, by Albert Outler (1908-1989). In an article published in the Wesleyan Theological Journal titled, “The Wesleyan Quadrilateral – In John Wesley,” Outler wrote: “The term ‘quadrilateral’ does not occur in the Wesley corpus—and more than once, I have regretted having coined it for contemporary use, since it has been so widely misconstrued.”

Second, I think the first sentence of this article is a reach: “Wesley’s Quadrilateral is the center piece of United Methodism.” I confess to not having the time to research this fully, but I am fairly confident that this statement is not one that is found in the Book of Discipline. If there is a center piece of United Methodism, I would think it would be something more along the lines of the UMC’s mission to “make disciples of Jesus Christ.” Elevating the Quadrilateral to “center piece” status would seem to be on the verge of another form of fundamentalism that is not helpful to the current context of polarization and mistrust. This is not to say that Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience are not important norms for theological reflection. As a United Methodist pastor I think that they are absolutely important norms. However, I do not think the Quadrilateral should be lifted up as the center piece of Methodism. I think the Discipline highlights a preferable aim for Methodism “to summon people to experiencing the justifying and sanctifying grace of God and encourage people to grow in the knowledge and love of God through the personal and corporate disciplines of the Christian life” (45).

In the second sentence, we are told that the Quadrilateral is found in the introduction of Wesley’s forty-four sermons” and that “it has provided a balanced doctrinal perspective for over 200 years.” I am not sure what introduction is being referred to, but I am guessing it is the introduction that Outler wrote for his 1964 collection of Wesley’s works. The Quadrilateral is certainly not mentioned in the Preface that Wesley wrote for Sermons on Several Occasions. On the other hand, in that Preface Wesley did write, “I want to know one thing, the way to heaven – how to land safe on that happy shore. God himself has condescended to teach the way: for this very end he came from heaven. He hath written it down in a book. O give me that book! At any price give me the Book of God! I have it. Here is knowledge enough for me. Let me be homo unius libri [A man of one book]. Here then I am, far from the busy ways of men. I sit down alone: only God is here. In his presence I open, I read his Book; for this end, to find the way to heaven” (Bicentennial Edition, Vol. I, 105-106).

Skipping to the third paragraph, “2004 General Conference ‘editors’ moved scripture to first and foremost on the quadrilateral. The next attempt will be to move to Sola Scriptura, ‘Scripture Alone.’ This is AWAY from John Wesley’s instructions.” This statement makes it appear as if placing Scripture above tradition, reason, and experience is a recent innovation. The reality is that most Wesley scholars see this as accurately correcting a misperception that arose from Outler’s articulation of the Quadrilateral. In other words, what was being altered was not Wesley’s theology, but Outler’s articulation of Wesley’s theology — so that it would be more faithful to Wesley’s own writing.

In Wesley and the Quadrilateral: Renewing the Conversation Scott Jones (formerly a professor at Southern Methodist University, and currently Bishop of the Kansas Area) points out that Wesley called himself a man of one book and forty-one years later: “He uses the phrase again to talk about the beginning of Methodism and its continuing commitment to Scripture:

[Wesley’s own words follow] From the very beginning, from the time that four young men united together, each of them was homo unius libri – a man of one book. God taught them all to make his word a lantern unto their feet, and a light in all their paths. They had one, and only one rule of judgment, with regard to all their tempers, words and actions, namely, the oracles of God. They were one and all determined to be Bible-Christians. They were continually reproached for this very thing; some terming them in derision Bible-bigots; others, Bible-moths – feeding, they said, upon the Bible as moths do upon cloth. And indeed unto this day it is their constant endeavor to think and speak as the oracles of God.[End of Wesley’s words]

Any accurate understanding of Wesley’s view of the Bible must first start here, with a strong statement that Scripture alone is the authority for Christian faith and practice” (41).

I am proud to be a part of the Oklahoma Conference and I give thanks for the voices in our Conference, and throughout our denomination, who are calling for United Methodists to reclaim our Wesleyan heritage. Unfortunately, the information that MUM is propagating at General Conference relating to Wesley’s relationship to the Quadrilateral is misleading and inaccurate. I hope that future publications will be more carefully researched and nuanced.

A Helpful take on Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

20 Wednesday Jun 2007

Posted by Kevin M. Watson in Article Review

≈ Leave a comment

One of the debates that has been the most frustrating to me personally has been the debate about Evolution and Intelligent Design. It is not because I am an expert and know what I am talking about and I am frustrated that other people are so wrong in where they are coming from. In fact, I am anything but an expert. The personal frustration has been that I have seen this debate become a major stumbling block to people having faith in God. From the perspective of someone who is not an expert on this debate, it seems like the more the ID folks try to make sure God doesn’t get defined out of science, the more many scientists become determined to do just that.

I am saddened and concerned by the degree of hostility that seems to exist among people on different sides of this issue.

J. Scott Turner has written a very interesting article in the June 12, 2007 issue of Christian Century that helped me clarify some of what was bouncing around in my head. (Unfortunately, I cannot find a link to this article on the CC website, but I would encourage you to pick up a copy of the magazine, I found it to be worth the read.)

Turner writes as a scientist who seems to be a bit confused as to why so many other scientists are approaching this issue from a rather unscientific perspective. The article caught my attention because I began reading expecting it to basically tear a hole in the Intelligent Design argument. But, rather than really discussing the arguments between ID and Evolution in much of any detail, he actually talks about what is at stake when these arguments become so heated, and when they are settled not in labs or in academic publications, but through litigation and in courtrooms.

Turner writes that from his perspective ID is at bat with two strikes already against it:

It seems less than sporting, then, to call the pitch while it’s still in the air, which is precisely what many of my colleagues insist on doing, sometimes quite vehemently. This, to me, is the most problematic thing about the controversy: it’s not ID that keeps me awake at nights, but the tactics and attitudes of certain colleagues who really should know better. In Pogo’s immortal words, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

Turner ends the article by essentially arguing that if ID is really such bad science, scientists ought to be able to demonstrate that through the work that they do. They should not resort to making it illegal to teach ID or resort to creating straw men that distract normal people who don’t know the subtleties of the discussion (like me) from the actual areas where research is coming to different conclusions.

In discussing a recent court case in Dover, PA, Turner concludes:

Many of my scientific colleagues were involved in this case. One would hope that they would have taken a stance of principled neutrality, offering a robust defense of academic freedom tempered with the sober recognition that freedom means that sometimes people wil think, speak and even teach things one disagrees with. Instead, my colleagues took sides; many were actively involved as advocates for the plaintiffs, and they were cheered on by many more from the sidelines. Although there was general jubilation at the ruling, I think the joy will be short-lived, for we have affirmed the principle that a federal judge, not scientists or teachers, can dictate what is and what is not science, and what may or may not be taught in a classroom. Forgive me if I do not feel more free.

I don’t know about you, but that made me think. Could it be that both sides are coming at this from the wrong perspective? It does seem odd to place the responsibility for what can be taught in schools in the hands of a judge.

Barbara Brown Taylor on the Poured-Out Church

14 Thursday Jun 2007

Posted by Kevin M. Watson in Article Review

≈ Leave a comment

Barbara Brown Taylor has written an excellent article in the May 29, 2007 issue of Christian Century. Barbara Brown Taylor is discussing some of the correspondence she has received since writing her recent book Leaving Church. (If you are interested Adam Walker Cleaveland has recently written a review of Leaving Church on his blog pomomusings, you can read his review here.

In the article in Christian Century, Barbara Brown Taylor writes: What I cannot figure is how any church organized around the self-donation of Jesus can stay invested in self-preservation. What would it look like for a church to lay down its life for its friends?

She concludes the article: Leaving church, I believe, is what church is for – leaving on a regular basis, leaving to see what God is up to in the world and joining God there, delivering all the riches of the institution to those who need them most, in full trust that God will never leave the church without all that it needs to live.

Amen! If you are interested in reading the full article, you can read it here.

Thanks to Barbara Brown Taylor for giving some profound thoughts to chew on this morning! What are your thoughts about this article?

Excellent Sermon by Philip Yancey

06 Wednesday Jun 2007

Posted by Kevin M. Watson in Article Review

≈ 3 Comments

The June 2007 issue of Christianity Today has an excellent sermon by Philip Yancey that he preached on the Virginia Tech campus two weeks after the massacre. His pastoral sensitivity in preaching to students whose lives have been changed forever by this tragedy is amazing. This is one of the best pieces of writing that I have ever read that attempts to provide something for Christians to cling to in the midst of events that turn one’s life upside down. I can’t even describe it with justice, I found it to be very well said. You can read the sermon here.

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • Kevin M. Watson
    • Join 352 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Kevin M. Watson
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar