Tag Archives: UMC

Key United Methodist Beliefs

27 Wednesday Mar 2013

Posted by in Book Review, Christian Living, Methodist History, Wesley

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , ,

“Belief matters.”

These are the very first words of the introduction to Key United Methodist Beliefs by William J. Abraham and David F. Watson. In light of my recent thinking and writing about the connection between right belief and right practice, I can’t think of a better way to begin a Wesleyan catechism.

If you have been following my recent writing, you will also have noticed the discussion about the invisibility of the Wesleyan message in online and print media compared to other parts of the church catholic. One of my hypotheses is that a major reason that the Wesleyan message is not getting a broader hearing today is because there are so many different voices claiming to represent the Wesleyan or Methodist tradition.

All of this has led to the belief that renewal will come to Methodism in America through a renewal of both Wesleyan doctrine and practice.

The challenge, though, is that in some parts of American Methodism there is a persistent mistrust of the value of doctrine. The concern generally seems to be that a church with clear doctrinal commitments will use them to bludgeon other people or exclude them.

While I appreciate the concern, I continue to be convinced that a deep retrieval of the significance of doctrine will be a part of any coming renewal of American Methodism. Along these lines, William J. Abraham and David F. Watson (no relation) have given a gift to the church in their new book Key United Methodist Beliefs.

After the simple affirmation that belief matters, they continue:

What we believe about God, about God’s saving work within creation, about human wrongdoing, about the goal of our lives and our eternal destiny all matter. They make a difference with regard to how we think about ourselves and other people, about life and death, what we should value in life, and what kind of person we should hope to become. It is common to hear people talk about beliefs as if one is simply as good as another. For some, the one great sin is to insist on a clear difference between truth and falsehood, between right and wrong, but this perspective cannot coexist with Christianity. For that matter, it cannot coexist with Judaism or Islam, either, but that is not our topic here. The claims that we Christians make about what God has done for us – for all creation – in and through Jesus Christ really do matter. (ix)

Someone might concede that beliefs matter, but point out that belief itself is insufficient. Indeed, there have been many periods in the history of Christianity where movements have arisen in opposition to a fierce and rigid dogmatism that at times led to violence. It is not enough for those who take on the name of Jesus, calling themselves Christians, to have right thoughts or ideas about Jesus. Belief must lead to action. One of the beauties of Key United Methodist Beliefs is that Abraham and Watson anticipate this objection and address it head on at the beginning of the book. Here is how they conclude the introduction.

Right belief, by itself, of course, is not enough. As Wesley put it, a person may be “as orthodox as the devil… and may all the while be as great a stranger as he to the religion of the heart.” Right belief does matter, though, because it helps us know God more fully, and it is by knowing and loving God, and by God’s knowing and loving us, that we become the people God wants us to be. We read in the Roman Catholic catechism, “The whole concern of doctrine and its teaching must be directed to the love that never ends. Whether something is proposed for belief, for hope or for action, the love of our Lord must always be made accessible, so that anyone can see that all the works of perfect Christian virtue spring from love and have no other objective than to arrive at love.” The goal is love, and God is love. We should do all we can, therefore, to know God. (xii)

This book is helpful because it is a strong articulation of the importance of beliefs for United Methodism that also demonstrates that those who argue for the necessity of doctrine for the life of the church make the argument for both doctrinal and practical reasons. In other words, right doctrine is always connected to right practice. From start to finish, it is clear that the authors of this book are convinced not only that orthodoxy (right belief) matters but also that orthopraxy (right practice) matters.

Abraham and Watson’s consistent connection of belief to practice has the potential to advance the conversation about the role of doctrine in the church beyond the strawman argument that those who care about right belief do not care about practice, or Christian living.

To cite one of many examples. In the chapter “Who Is God the Father?” Abraham and Watson affirm a key belief: “To think of God as God the Father is to believe that God loves all people and wishes to save us from sin and death” (6) They then conclude: “The nature of God the Father is one of self-giving, and in like kind, we should give of ourselves to God and our neighbors as well” (7).

The title of the book is a bit misleading, as the book is about much more than “United Methodist” beliefs. To me, it is really a Wesleyan catechism. Unfortunately, the title of the book will likely narrow the potential audience, when many Wesleyan communities would have been likely to use the book if the title were “Wesleyan Beliefs” or “A Wesleyan Catechism.”

Each chapter is oriented around a central question and is divided into five sections: A Wesleyan Faith, A Lived Faith, A Deeper Faith, The Catechism, and In Your Own Words. The first three parts are narrative, as you would expect in a typical book. The fourth part, in true catechetical format, is a question and answer format, which often includes Scripture passages that amplify the answer. The fifth chapter is basically questions for discussion, which could help an individual reader reflect more on the impact of a particular belief for their own life or it could be used as a basis for discussion in small groups.

And just in case I was on the fence for the first nine chapters, chapter ten, “How Should Wesleyans Live?” is largely an engagement with the “General Rules”: do no harm, do good, and attend upon the ordinances of God.

Key United Methodist Beliefs is an exceptional resource that has the potential to be useful in a variety of contexts. If I were a local church pastor, this would be a resource I would use in preparing people for confirmation or membership. I highly recommend this book. At a minimum, it should be in every Wesleyan/Methodist pastor’s personal library.

Doctrine, Polity, and the UMNS

06 Wednesday Apr 2011

Posted by in Article Review, links, Ministry

≈ 10 Comments

Tags

, , ,

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.”)

Oklahoma Conference Constitutional Amendments Results

23 Tuesday Jun 2009

Posted by in links

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

,

Today the Oklahoma Conference published the results of the vote on the proposed amendments to the United Methodist denomination. The results can be viewed by clicking here.

It looks like the two issues which generated the most controversy failed to receive the number of votes needed in order to change the constitution.

Interestingly, the amendment which received the most overwhelmingly negative vote was the amendment relating to the committee on investigation. I think this was solely due to Grayson Lucky’s very convincing speech against the amendment, where he argued that the amendment would introduce fundamental inconsistencies into the Book of Discipline.

The Class Meeting and Itinerancy

26 Monday Jan 2009

Posted by in Book Review, links, Ministry, Wesley

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

In continuing to read Norwood’s The Story of American MethodismI came across some interesting analysis of the decline of the class meeting. Norwood connects the decline of the class meeting with the decline of the circuit riding preacher. Norwood writes:

The high point of the class meeting coincides with the heyday of the circuit rider. Its decline dates from his dismounting. As long as the traveling preacher was on the go around his circuit and from appointment to appointment, the place of the class meeting was secure. The class leader was needed to perform those pastoral functions which are part of a balanced ministry. But when the preacher settled down in a parsonage as a stationed pastor, the class leader… became, at least so it seemed, an unnecessary wheel. Inadvertently, because of the settling down of the traveling preacher, Methodism lost one of its strongest supports, the active ministerial participation of the lay people. (132)

This is not portrayed by Norwood as a positive development. Norwood concludes the chapter musing that “Ever since, Methodists have been trying to decide whether they would be a great church or a holy people.” When I first read this, I thought: Are the two mutually exclusive? I guess it depends on your definition of a “great church.”

The important point, it seems to me, is not that we should work to return to a truly itinerant ministry. Instead, it is that there is something vital missing when the active ministerial participation of the lay people (to use Norwood’s phrase) is missing. I see the class meeting as a key to renewing, strengthening, and empowering a lively lay ministry.

The Ideal First Appointment

23 Wednesday Jul 2008

Posted by in Ministry

≈ 11 Comments

Tags

, ,

There has been some great discussion about younger clergy, appointment making, and the culture of the United Methodist Church as a result of my review of The Crisis of Younger Clergy by Lovett Weems and Ann Michel. I have continued to think about this conversation the past few days and I have started thinking about one particular question that I would like to invite your feedback on: What would make for the ideal first appointment for a younger pastor?

I would love to hear from those of you who have experienced a first appointment as a younger pastor. I would be interested in hearing the thoughts of folks who have not personally beem young clergy in a first appointment, but have observed younger clergy and have thoughts about what would be most helpful. It seems to me that there are several issues surrounding this question: What are the stewardship issues? Development issues? Formation issues? etc.

What are your thoughts?

Good Readin’ Part 1

11 Monday Feb 2008

Posted by in Book Review

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

I have been able to do a fair amount of reading lately, but I have not sat down and blogged about very many of the books I have read. So, this week I thought I would take the time to post brief reviews of a few of the books I have read lately. Today we will look at How Great a Flame: Contemporary Lessons from The Wesleyan Revival by James Logan.

How Great a Flame is a very quick read. The book is a smaller format than normal and is 96 pages. I read most of the book in one sitting. I have to say that I was a bit thrown by the Foreword, which was written by Rev. Karen Greenwaldt. Greenwaldt’s foreward made me think I was going to be reading a book that was very different than the one that I actually read. Her review on the back cover of the book has the same tenor as the forward, “James Logan offers a thought-provoking book that explores the interconnection between vital piety and social witness among those Christians who were part of the Wesleyan movement.” This would certainly be a worthwhile undertaking, but I did not find this to be a prominent focus of How Great a Flame.

Aside from the discrepancy that I found between the foreward and the book itself, I really enjoyed this book. Logan calls United Methodists to account a few times, like when he compares our desire for respectability, decency, and order to John Wesley’s. He writes, “But herein lies the difference between Wesley and us. It was ‘the cross’ he chose to bear, and the one which we leave to other churches and groups who don’t conform to our standards of decency and order” (16). Logan writes this in a discussion about field preaching, suggesting that Wesley was able to get out of his comfort zone in order to be faithful, while Methodists today are rarely willing to take these kinds of risks.

In the second chapter, Logan beautifully describes the distinctive features of the Wesleyan revival as: open-air preaching, the organizing of converts into two distinctive on-going structures, and the deployment of a two-tiered lay ministry (26). This chapter includes a wonderful description of the often gradual nature of conversion and how this related to the importance of sanctification. Logan connects the eclipse of the class meeting with the move toward altar call preaching aimed at instantaneous conversion. He writes, “With the eclipse of the class meeting, Methodists came more and more to accept and practice a truncated form of evangelism that focused exclusively upon a decisionistic, instantaneous conversion…. The eclipse of the class meeting marked a decided decline in the church’s sense of being a disciplined people. Without the class meeting the major structure for spiritual accountability was lost, and the church compromised its ecclesial identity, exchanging a missional consciousness for an institutional consciousness” (38).

In the final chapter Logan discusses some bad habits we have gotten into in relation to evangelism and then suggests some ways forward.

My main criticism of this book would be that it felt a bit unfinished. It may have been the point in which I stopped reading and then began reading again – but when I got to the last page, I was surprised it was over. It felt like more should be coming. Ultimately, that is at least a sign that he said many things that really resonated with me and I wanted to hear more.

I would recommend this book to anyone who wants a brief overview of Wesleyan distinctives, especially as they connect a Wesleyan understanding of grace, discipline, and Christian living to evangelism in the twenty-first century. I definitely found this book to be worth the read!

(Coming soon! Later this week we will look at Vital Signs: A Pathway to Congregational Wholeness by Dan R. Dick, Preaching as Testimony by Anna Carter Florence, and Deepening Your Effectiveness: Restructuring the Local Church for Life Transformation by Dan Glover and Claudia Lavy.)