Unraveling at the Point of Dispute

"Methodism was not born because of any doctrinal dispute”.

Disciples studying for the ministry in the United Methodist Church (UMC) as elders, deacons, and licensed pastors have surely read and heard this declaration from many seminary and course of study professors.  John Wesley was a priest of the Church of England, and there is no indication he ever had disputes with Anglican (catholic, little “c”) doctrine.  His disputes with the powers-that-be were that the church needed to more proactive in the lives of the marginalized, that the church needed to go to the people rather than to merely expect the people to show up. 

However, it was not social justice or social principles Wesley took to the people.  It was the Good News of The Lord faithfully delivered, and the people were left to decide for themselves which “side” they would choose – the full promise of the Gospel or the empty promises of the world.   Only the Holy Spirit compelled many to step forward and receive that Good News for themselves.

It is strangely ironic, then, that disputes of doctrine may soon be the undoing of the United Methodist Church - as we now know it - whose only mission is to “make disciples” but whose mission has been seriously compromised in favor of a very highly subjective “social justice”.  The UMC’s steadfast teaching on human sexual ethics has been ruled by the UM Judicial Council as having the force of church law, and it was recently affirmed in decision 1341 that “Under the long-standing principle of legality, no individual member or entity may violate, ignore, or negate Church law”.  This includes matters of sexual conduct.

Since 1972, there have been those who have insisted that the church’s stance be changed to be more accommodating of the dominant human culture.  Now we are at a point of official declarations of disobedience by bishops, clergy, and even whole Annual Conferences because the covenant they all freely entered into is no longer tolerable to them.  

“Holy Conferencing” is upheld as one of many means of grace in the UMC.  That is, we gather to worship, to pray, and to celebrate our common ministry in Christ with one another and with the communities we are called to serve.  Included in this principle of “holy conferencing” is our need to be held to account for the very challenging components of discipleship with a sincere and expected offer of help and support when (not if) we falter.  Sometimes we or our fellows must be challenged in some chosen courses of action not merely because we disagree with the action but because we understand the Judgment is coming and is perhaps upon us now, and that it is our intense desire that “all” be found in good standing with The Lord.

While the circus continues on the national stage as some of our fellows insist upon publicly airing the Church’s dirty laundry (note that the secular press will gleefully report these disputes and protests but are virtually silent on the remarkable work of the United Methodist Committee on Relief {UMCOR} during this challenging hurricane season and other disasters!), the local church is having a difficult time trying to wade through the nonsense and find some measure of good sense as it pertains to the doctrinal practices of the United Methodist Church.  It isn’t always easy to maintain a solid composure and missional focus on the local level, and it certainly presents challenges to clergy and laity alike to stay focused on the “main thing”.  If the Primary Mission of the UMC is to “make disciples of Christ for the transformation of the world”, how do we stay focused on that Great Commission while some insist we first hear, and agree with, them and their ideas on what is most important?  And frame it under “social justice” just for good measure – in case we’re not biting?

It matters because the UMC continues a steady decline in worship attendance, Sunday school and small group participation, professions of faith, and tithing – all measures of the Church’s vitality.  It matters not to a connectional Church that one Conference may be faring better than another, for we can be no better off than the weakest among us.  Of course we must acknowledge there are many who are only looking for a reason to bow out of the life of the Church and/or to withhold funds – all spiritually very risky – and we cannot accommodate the demands of every individual nor must we cave to those who scream the loudest or give (or threaten to withhold) the most money. 

And this is the very reason why this “issue” is so troublesome to so many.  It seems one side (or maybe both) may be willing to see the whole Church burned to the ground rather than to concede the greater point.  Perhaps we need King Solomon’s wisdom to guide us from this point (1 Kings 3:16-27

Even those who might be willing to be more accommodating have acknowledged the difficulty with trying to stay on task and remove ourselves from any sort of political posturing; and on the local level, what happens at General Conference does not always flow easily to the local church.  Clergy are in a very difficult position in trying to maintain the vitality of our Connection without making members feel compelled to pick a side before we can continue on The Way.

Yet this is how many are left to feel.  The raging battles make many feel as though the UMC cannot continue to “make disciples” until we first choose which “side” we will make disciples with.  At least, this how the advocates of a much more liberal doctrine make us (me) feel.  It is as if I cannot continue until I decide whether or not I will agree to marry any and all who demand to be married regardless of my personal beliefs.  It is as if the Gospel itself has no meaning or purpose until we choose which “side” we will work with.

Worse than this is the false dichotomy that we must choose between what we understand about “faithfulness” to The Lord and another’s notion of secular and cultural “inclusiveness”.  It is an impossible choice to make and an unfair burden to place on Christians, many of whom are not yet equipped to deal with such matters.  Never mind the “milk” vs “solid food” of theology; we’re trying to serve these “babes” hard liquor!!  It is, I believe, the primary reason so many are choosing to leave the UMC.  They come to hear the Good News, not the latest political or social news “from the front”.

Regardless of the outcome of the “Commission on a way forward” and the called session of General Conference, the UMC is going to walk away from this bruised and bloody.  Only The Lord knows whether we will recover and remain intact (or even useful) for His Purposes rather than for our own.