Scott Jones’ book United Methodist Doctrine: The Extreme Center argues for the importance of doctrine in the life of the United Methodist Church an provides his summary of the shape and specific content of that doctrine. He also argues that ordained clergy be held to their ordination vows to teach and maintain the doctrine of the UMC.
In the closing section of the book, he discusses the difficulty in deciding the bounds for honest dissent with doctrine. He suggests the church cannot tolerate dissent on issues that are central to the denomination’s teaching. Jones uses the example of unitarian teaching as something that hits close to the center. A preacher who cannot persuade the denomination to change its doctrine on such an issue, Jones writes, should turn in his or her credentials and withdraw from the connection.
The book has me wondering about what lies at the doctrinal center of the UMC.
Clearly homosexuality and abortion are not such issues. Theological liberals disagree strongly with church doctrine on homosexuality, yet remain in the denomination. Theological conservatives go well beyond church teaching on the issue of abortion, which calls for access to safe abortions in all but a few cases. So far, few clergy have left the denomination over these differences and none – so far as I know – have been brought up on charges for teaching doctrines contrary to the UMC. (A few pastors have gotten in trouble for being homosexuals, but none – so far as I know – have been charged with church crimes for teaching contrary to church doctrine about homosexuality.)
So, on the theory that you know what matters to an organization by what it is willing to kick people out for, I wonder what lies so close to the heart of United Methodist doctrine that we’d draw a line in the sand.
What doctrinal issues should get a clergy person in trouble with the denomination? Are there any? If not, why do we bother to talk about accountability with the laity?
I am a part-time local pastor serving 
The doctrine of original sin is surely more humbling to man than the opposite: And I know not what honour we can pay to God, if we think man came out of His hands in the condition wherein he is now.
Excellent post. I tremble at the answers our denominational leaders might provide.
John, this is a great question, and I look forward to seeing what your readers think. I would also be interested to hear what you think–if there are doctrinal issues that should get a clergy person in trouble with the denomination, and if so, what you think those might be.
Ben, see my response to Pam below for some specifics.
I have not thought this through completely. Hence, why I’m not a bishop, I guess.
I do not know if preaching false doctrine would get you in trouble with the denomination. If it won’t, though, then the Boards of Ordained Ministry are wasting their time grilling all those poor provisional elders so hard. If doctrine matters at the beginning of ministry, it should matter later.
Out of curiosity, what sort of doctrines did he think were non-negotiable?
I don’t understand “unitarian as center” in the sense that I personally would consider being Trinitarian as non-negotiable.
I’d be happy to agree that a Methodist pastor who was unitarian shouldn’t be a Methodist pastor. I’m a bit more puzzled by the idea that failure to convince a recalcitrant congregation to convert to Trintarianism should be an offense that sacks the pastor.
In British Methodism, I know of a Local Preacher (lay preacher) who was removed from the preaching roll because he was preaching spiritualism and refused to refrain from doing so. I know of another Local Preacher who became convinced of male headship and was asked not to preach male headship (but was not asked to stop preaching). To me, both these doctrines (spiritualism and male-headship) are clearly not Methodist and it’s easier to measure these actual, concrete examples against the accepted doctrine. In British Methodism, the Superintendent Minister of the circuit (which is a much more everyday and hands-on role than the DS in the UMC) has authority to decide who does and does not preach. Stripping someone of their orders has to be done by Conference, though, I believe.
Pam, bad sentence. Meant to say that unitarianism would be one of those doctrines that hit so close to the center that it required some sort of action or response. A preacher who is a committed unitarian should go find a different denomination and/or be told to stop preaching unitarianism.
Jones does not have a master list. He mention unitarianism and white supremacy as teachings that are beyond the bounds of Methodism. These are pretty easy targets.
My list – not that it means anything – would include those, as well as doctrines against women leadership in the church. I’d think anyone teaching one of major Christological heresies would be out. Jesus was just a wise teacher. Jesus did not really rise bodily from the tomb. (I’ll note that Mr. Borg comes very close to these positions and so might be out of bounds.)
What else? Pantheism. Gnosticism.
Since the major emphasis of Wesleyan and therefore Methodist doctrine is on salvation, I’d say any of the really aggressive forms of universalism, which make void the need for salvation, would be highly problematic.
I’m not so certain about sacramental theology. I am bothered when I see Methodists preaching and practicing believer’s baptism and child dedication, but should it be a chargeable offense to do so? I do not know.
The difference between British and American Methodism is striking in your example. There is very little theological oversight of local churches – so far as I have seen – in American churches. It worries me that as we move to put more emphasis on “accountability” by counting butts in the pews but have no systems for theological accountability that we are going to create pressure to morph into “whatever works” churches. But that is another post.
Interesting conversation. I agree with a lot of your examples, although I’ve been judged by a number of lay-people (not ministers or “professors”) to believe that “Christ did not rise bodily from the tomb” in the sense that I resist the idea that it’s necessary to believe that the body that was crucified was resuscitated and I think that Paul deals with trying to explain “what sort of body Christ had” in his letter to the Corinthians (“If Christ be not raised, our faith is in vain”). What many lay-people consider to be “orthodoxy” – that Christ’s body was resuscitated but we ourselves are going to go live in a Greek-Gnostic “Spiritual” heaven with no idea of a Kingdom that has physicality or human resurrected bodies with physicality is the exact opposite of what I believe.
I think that what worries me is what I’ve seen on the internet of UMC lay-people advocating doctrinal purity. At the risk of sounding pompous, the views that a number of people express seem uneducated and uninformed. “Fundamentalist” in the original sense of the word (minus any overtones of mental instability). It is these people who have all unfailingly called me an unorthodox heretic: they want belief in resurrection as resuscitation, belief in the bible as verbally-inspired, inerrant and infallible, they see the creeds as line-by-line tests of whether an individual is a “true believer” rather than as statements of the doctrines of the Church.
I’m not accusing Scott Jones of this, but who is going to get control of doctrinal oversight? At the risk of sticking my neck out a bit too much, I think it’s a lot of the people above who need some doctrinal correction, not those who have actually studied theology in good, orthodox seminaries.
Your question “Who is going to get control of doctrinal oversight?” is the giant hole in the middle of everything I am asking.
The answer is that no one will. We have no structures and no recent history to do that. We have very little doctrinal teaching in our churches, so whatever is in the wider Christian culture becomes doctrine. Conservatives have one set of doctrines they pick up. Liberals another. But none of them relate necessarily to Methodist tradition and doctrine. Often they contradict it.
But I don’t see any mechanism to counter-act that trend. Even our clergy who take vows to uphold Methodist doctrine and to teach it do not often seem devoted to keeping that vow.
The problem in British Methodism is that the oversight can be inconsistently applied. The Superintendent minister who I mentioned above (both incidents happened under her oversight) was actually fairly “liberal” but always had the nerve to stand up for what she believed were Methodist principles. I think many pastors have lost that nerve and just let people float along.
For example, one of the really big no-nos in British Methodism is rebaptising people who were baptised as babies. I know that the “out” is, if a congregant really feels it’s important for personal pastoral reasons, you find a minister from another denomination who will baptize them and everyone troops over to the other church for the (re)baptism. I can countenance that as a last resort if a person really insists on it. However, I know of a Methodist church where the pastor preaches believers’ baptism, the necessity for rebaptism if one was baptised as a baby, and who refuses to baptise babies. The church is big and wealthy and no one has stood up to the minister or the congregation even though I’ve met a number of British Baptist ministers in my time who were brought up Methodist and changed denomination over this issue. So, somewhere along the line, someone does not have the nerve to call a stop to this.
It does seem to me that, particularly in the UMC (probably moreso than in British Methodism), pastors have to worry about pleasing the congregations to which they are assigned. Besides our mutual blogging acquaintance, I’ve “met” another former UMC pastor who was pushed out of the ministry as well as out of attending church because a bullying, powerful lay person with a wacky, unorthodox theology came after him. The bullying happens in British Methodism too, but I feel that I’d personally know who to turn to in the hierarchy to at least get a bit of personal support and and an enquiry.
I think many pastors have lost that nerve and just let people float along.
This is a widespread problem. I am part of it. The church I serve should have cleared about a dozen non-attending and non-involved members off its rolls by now, but that is going to ruffle some feathers, so I have not pushed it. (I’m a Pleaser by leadership style.)
I have been trying to talk to myself about my role being getting the church in stronger shape so that when I leave it is more vital than when I arrived. Having meaningful membership standards is one of those things, so I am going to try to get myself to follow through on that issue this year. Of course, the best outcome would be that when we contact the distant and missing members we do it in a way that invites them back into the life of the church and they return. But, if not, we need to honor the meaning of membership.
This is not all that similar to your examples, but the lack of backbone is the same. Until we are willing to stand up for what we claim matters, then we might as well toss all the standards aside and stop worrying about it.
And the problem with tossing the principles and standards aside is that there are people out there who want to be part of a disciplined and vital church. When we deny them that, we are robbing them and God of an opportunity for true discipleship.
That Superintendent Minister taught me a few tricks about leading in a situation where people can vote with their feet (quite different from my previous experience in business where people’s paychecks often persuaded them to implement unwanted changed!): start making noises about what your intentions are outside of meetings so that people have some time to get used to the idea. If you’re really clever, you might be able to finagle this so that someone else thinks it’s their idea and puts it on the table for you. You might even be able to enroll someone to do this.
Expect flack and backlash and have your personal support system set up for when it comes (I’d suggest you want at least one other person besides your spouse who you can complain to and who will support you). I think this is absolutely necessary for all tasks that require backbone.
Try to figure out, if you can, if there is a greater issue behind the simple housekeeping one. Do people feel, for instance, that by taking these people off the rolls, we’re saying that these individuals don’t matter to us anymore? Do they feel we’re writing off their son or daughter or former beloved next-door neighbor who retired to Florida? Maybe a project honoring the congregation’s past, like a photo and memorabilia display can help. Then have a service honoring the congregation’s past and remove the display – don’t let it become a shrine!!!! – and maybe move on to a project about “Who we are today and where we want to go”.
I personally don’t like the idea of “discipline” (and I realize that this is a personal thing) because I always hear the idea “I’m going to try to impose my idea of how you should be on you” rather than “I’m going to try to regulate myself”. I’m thinking about this idea at the moment, but I’m thinking that it’s about being differentiated and grounded. It’s about knowing who we are and where we are going. Both in my life as an individual and in group life. I think that many evangelical churches are successful because they have a determined, distinct and grounded identity. But I think a church can have a determined, distinct and grounded identity as a church that has a mission for social justice and where the services are going to be rooted in traditional liturgy. Or a church can have a determined, distinct and grounded identity having a mission to intentionally welcome gay people. I think the problem with more mainstream or “liberal” churches is that we don’t see the value in being grounded and we think that to be open and welcoming we have to be wishy-washy and blow with the wind. I, for one, think we just need to be grounded in who we are and stop apologizing for what we believe without being obnoxious about it.