Identity, Leadership and Mission
The first article of this series underscored the continuing numerical decline of United Methodism and the growing spiritual hunger of our culture. Taking our parallel from the three rivers that surround the site of the General Conference in Pittsburgh, Good News, along with a coalition of renewal groups, believes that action in three areas will dramatically increase the possibility for renewal.
These three areas are identity, leadership, and mission. In this article I would like to briefly review the essential connection between United Methodist identity and our doctrine, suggest why this is a matter of practical concern for all United Methodists, and highlight legislative proposals that will be presented to the General Conference to move this agenda forward. In the March/April issue, I will focus on the matters of leadership and mission.
So what is the big deal about doctrine?Of course that is not an exact quote from any particular individual, but it is an accurate summary of some perspectives others have shared with me. It's an important question for General and Jurisdictional Conference delegates, too.
Just what is so important about doctrine?
. What does it matter if we believe that Jesus of Nazareth was both fully God and fully human? Can't the church let people carve out their own spiritual path and beliefs?
. Do we believe that Jesus' death by crucifixion on a Friday afternoon outside the walls of Jerusalem is somehow essential to the salvation of all peoples of the world at all times in all places, or is that an expression of narrow-minded religious provincialism? And what's the difference if we believe that this Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead or if we think resurrection is a symbolic and metaphorical way to speak about human yearnings for immortality that doesn't need to be historically true in order to be real?
. I believe Jesus Christ is the Sovereign of the universe and the Hope of the world, that all things were created by him, through him, for him, and in him all things hold together. You believe Jesus is a tribal deity of religionists called Christians and a metaphor like Mohammed or Buddha or Zoroaster. So what? Isn't the important thing that we can embrace, include, and welcome one another?
Pardon my underscoring what has been obvious to the vast majority of Christ-followers throughout the world for over two millennia: what we believe is foundational for understanding who we are and what we are to do.
Certainly the Scriptures are clear that the Christian community is grounded in and nurtured by a common confession of faith and doctrinal understanding. This is essential to Christian identity (among the large number of examples would be Col. 2:6,7; Jude 3,4; 2 Tim. 3). Contending for the "faith once delivered to the saints" is not a hobby for cranky conservatives, but is foundational to maintaining the identity of the Christian community. Doctrine provides the time-tested stance from which to understand God, ourselves, and our world.
The Book of Discipline affirms, ".the Church considers its doctrinal affirmations a central feature of its identity and restricts official changes to a constitutional process." (p. 75). Why? Scott Jones, professor at Perkins School of Theology, points out: "Doctrine answers questions like How should we worship God? and How do we bear witness to Christ in the world? It is Christian practice that gives rise to the problems that doctrine addresses, and doctrine's goal is to shape the practices of the community and its individual members" (United Methodist Doctrine: The Extreme Center. Abingdon, 2002, p. 73).
Beyond being a foundation for United Methodist belief and practice, doctrinal fidelity becomes particularly focused in our clergy who lead, teach, and preach in our local churches, in the bishops who are given the responsibility to "guard, transmit, and teach" our doctrines, in the general boards and agencies that speak and act on behalf of the General Conference, and in the seminaries that train so many of our leaders.
A third implication has to do with our relationship to other Christian churches throughout the world. "One Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph. 4:5) provides a basis for unity. Unity cannot be established by majority vote of the General Conference, the Council of Bishops, or the charge conference of a local congregation. It is a gift that grows from a common heart, vision, and mission. The official doctrine of the UM Church is our understanding of those common understandings, vision, and mission that invites a common heart of affirmation. The recent and ongoing rupture among our Anglican brothers and sisters is a salient example of the essentially practical nature of doctrine for the unity of the church.
What can the General Conference do?
The important role and value of doctrine will again be placed before the General Conference in Pittsburgh this spring. Certainly there will be a number of agenda items seeming more urgent and demanding immediate attention. Certainly these urgent items must have the attention of the General Conference, but they should not distract delegates from the long-term concerns of vitality, unity, and relevance for United Methodism. The delegates meeting in Pittsburgh must act to lift up and clarify our fidelity to the established standards of belief and practice. Good News and others have prepared and distributed model petitions for submission to the General Conference with the expectation that clarifying our commitment to doctrinal integrity will lead to greater vitality in the church. It will also free us to move forward in ministry with a common heart, mind, and purpose.
We are not calling for a nostalgia trip. We have no interest in a religious form of antiquing. Our doctrinal standards are grounded in a much larger tradition than modern political conservatism or Protestant fundamentalism; compared to the bankruptcy of twentieth-century Protestant liberalism, our doctrinal standards open the way to a fountain teeming with life (with appreciation to Tom Oden for some of this language and all of this important affirmation. See his Rebirth of Orthodoxy, Harper, 2003, p. 33).
Specifically, Good News encourages support for legislation strengthening the role of bishops in exercising doctrinal oversight (¶414.5).1 The Supervisory Response Team of the North Central Jurisdiction, in dismissing the most recent complaint against Bishop C. Joseph Sprague (Northern Illinois Conference), called for "serious theological reflection on issues of Biblical Authority, Christology, and the Mission of the Church." Yet, as of this writing, nothing has been initiated. One senses our bishops prefer, for whatever reasons, to leave things muddy when it comes to the essential beliefs and mission of the church.
Concerning ministerial preparation we seek a clear affirmation by our United Methodist seminaries of United Methodist and classical Christian doctrine (¶1416.4). An increasing number of local pastors are being licensed across the denomination such that we also support specific disciplinary language that requires Local Pastor Course of Study classes to be consistent with United Methodist doctrinal and ethical standards (¶1424.4).
Two other issues related to ministerial preparation bear mention at this point. First, the debt load of many graduating from seminary is a growing burden. Seminary graduates often begin their ministerial career in small charges/churches that pay entry-level salaries and thereby make education debts difficult to pay off. We believe a partial remedy would be to allow annual conference Boards of Ordained Ministry more scholarship funds to their candidates who are in seminary. This would reduce the debt load on the individual student. The funds could be made available through a readjustment of the Ministerial Education Fund formula (¶820.1-2). Presently 75 percent of the apportioned MEF monies from an annual conference go directly to the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry for support of ministerial education. The remaining 25 percent is left with the annual conference. We support making the formula a 60/40 or even a 50/50 sharing. This could make more money available to individual seminarians rather than continuing to subsidize established institutions regardless of their effectiveness in training ministers.
Second is the matter of who approves seminaries acceptable for training United Methodist clergy candidates. The University Senate (¶1414.2) is charged with approving both United Methodist and non-United Methodist seminaries for training UM candidates for ministry. The present Senate of twenty-five members has, by Disciplinary provision, at least thirteen executives of UM institutions of higher education. It is clear that having a majority of the Senate made up of executives from the institutions they are to review represents a conflict of interest. A new formula for University Senate membership is needed.
A final area for legislative action concerning doctrine relates to the general boards and agencies that implement the actions of the General Conference. We believe it is only reasonable to expect the staff of the church's boards and agencies to affirm and uphold the church's doctrinal and ethical standards (¶714.9).
In seeking the reversal of our continuing trend toward irrelevance, the United Methodist General Conference must reaffirm at every opportunity the doctrinal standards that are foundational to our identity, our training and development of leaders, and our effectiveness in mission.
Scott N. Field is the senior pastor of Wheatland Salem United Methodist church in Naperville, Illinois. He is also the chairperson of the Good News Board of Directors.