Four corners offense

The Rev. Dr. Thomas Ogletree has provided the church with an example of theological argumentation using the so-called Wesleyan Quadrilateral. He is a potentially instructive example of how to use the Quad since he helped write the portion of our Book of Discipline that discusses our theological task in the United Methodist Church.

As one who is trying to understand what it means to be a United Methodist, I thought I would follow along with his argument to try to learn his method. (I wrote about the less logic/argument aspects of this issue in a post published yesterday.)

He begins with a nod to John Wesley while making reference to the section of the Book of Discipline that Ogletree helped write.

Drawing upon John Wesley’s teachings, this section emphasizes the priority of biblical authority, and it underscores as well the indispensable roles of tradition, reason, and experience in informing our efforts to comprehend and appropriate the biblical witness.  These principles are clearly incompatible with attempts to settle complex theological and ethical issues by “proof texting,” i.e., the citation of carefully selected biblical texts that allegedly provide definitive resolutions of particular issues. he self-conscious inclusion of tradition, reason, and experience in our critical engagements with biblical resources actually deepens our discernment of the profound, life-transforming promises of the gospel message.

Here we see all four parts of the Quad: Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. Sadly, though, despite his mention of the priority of the biblical witness, he provides no further biblical references in developing his argument. He warns of the hazards of proof-texting and then moves on to tradition. This is a curious way to make something a priority.

In tradition, he finds positive and negative materials. On the negative side, he finds a “tradition” of unjust practices in the Methodist and United Methodist churches.

I am deeply grateful, moreover, for the opening section of The Book of Discipline, which reminds us of serious flaws and shortcomings manifest in the larger history of Methodism.  Shortcomings specifically listed include our previous accommodation of racial segregation by establishing a race-based Central Jurisdiction, and our extended denial of ordination rights and prominent leadership roles for women.   These unjust practices were by no means easily addressed or overcome.  Indeed, the struggles to eliminate them generated serious conflicts within the church, conflicts that were only resolved by persistent efforts to press for more just and inclusive church practices.

On the positive side, he finds statements in the church’s Social Principles that he feels endorse the position he is arguing on behalf of.

Equally important is the Disciplinary discussion of human rights as central to the “Social Principles” of The United Methodist Church (Part IV).  This text strongly endorses the Universal Declaration of Human Rights with emphasis on respect for the inherent dignity of all persons.  Explicitly cited are the full rights of racial, ethnic, and religious minorities; and the rights of children, young people, the aging, women, men, immigrants, and persons with disabilities.  The list concludes by declaring the full human rights of all persons without regard to their sexual orientations, a reference that suggests rational and experiential grounds for endorsing the rights of same-sex couples to marry.

From what I can gather by reading this argument, “tradition” for Ogletree is a form of history. This seems to comport with the discussion of “Tradition” in the Book of Discipline, which says in part:

The story of the church reflects the most basic sense of tradition, the continuing activity of God’s Spirit transforming human life. Tradition is the history of that continuing environment of grace in and by which all Christians live, God’s self-giving love in Jesus Christ.

So, a user of the Quad should be on the look out for stories and histories from the church that have some bearing on the issue at hand. Unfortunately, Olgetree’s goal in the example under consideration is polemical rather than constructive, so he appears not to look for or take into consideration stories or examples from Christian history that do not support his line of argument.

With tradition mined for its resources, he moves on to reason.

Reason dictates that we take account of the evolution of scientific and legal understandings, which now recognize that variations in sexual orientation are a natural feature of human life.  The denial of civil rights, including marriage rights, to gays and lesbians is, therefore, a violation of our Constitution.  While we await the Supreme Court’s ruling on these rights, we should acknowledge as United Methodists that unprecedented numbers of leaders from other religious communities, along with significant portions of our major political parties, and virtually all of the nation’s largest corporations now embrace marriage equality.

I must confess I find his use of secular politics and legal issues confusing in the midst of an argument that is framed as theological. I was not aware that “our Constitution” was a theological resource. Perhaps the mention of the United States Constitution in Article XXIII of our Articles of Religion grants it a place in theological reflection that I had missed before. Neither was it clear to me before that the practices of America’s largest corporations were useful tools in deciphering the meaning of Scripture.

That is an interesting thought. I wonder how widely that move will be invoked by other United Methodists seeking to apply reason to tricky theological issues: General Motors and Wal-Mart as theological guides.

Having given reason its day, Ogletree turns to experience — the most distinctly Wesleyan contribution to the Quad that bears his name.

Experience teachers us, moreover, that people with gay and lesbian orientations are as fully capable of living mature and socially responsible human lives as heterosexuals.

And here we come to the most disarming of all of Ogletree’s moves. If I read him properly, he is equating being a mature and socially responsible person with being a good Christian. So, to extrapolate, are we saying that any behavior that coincides with mature and socially responsible lives must be compatible with Christianity?

What about mature and socially responsible Muslims? Are they good Christians because they are mature and socially responsible? What about atheists who do good works?

Ogletree seems to miss the obvious point that there are millions of nice, decent, responsible people in the world who are not one bit Christian. Ogletree seems to be confusing “being a good person” with “being a Christian,” a mistake that is common among the laity, but surprising in an academic of Ogletree’s stature. His use of experience does not appear terribly subtle or sensitive to the theological issues at play in this case.

In the end, I was disappointed to discover that I did not get a lot of guidance on the proper use of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral from Ogletree’s argument. What I come away with is the impression that it is little more than a tool to help you dig up arguments that support positions you already hold, rather than a tool for serious theological inquiry.

Ogletree’s purpose appears to be polemical, though, so it is probably unfair of me to seek careful theological inquiry. Given Ogletree’s standing in the church, I hope it is not wrong to hope for that.

A traditional complaint about the so-called Wesleyan Quadrilateral is people who use it are too prone to use it to dismiss materials and resources that do not support the conclusions they want to reach. Critics say that instead of using the Quad to help interpret, apply, and extend the revelation of Scripture, people use it to confirm their own theology.

This case certainly appears to confirm that criticism.

A true Church-of-England man

In 1745 and thereafter, John Wesley exchanged a series of letters with a Mr. John Smith, who the editor of my copy of the works of Wesley notes is generally presumed to have been the Bishop of Oxford writing anonymously.

In one of the letters, the bishop accuses Wesley of deviating from the teachings of the Church of England. Smith criticizes Wesley for always appealing to the official doctrinal standards of the church in defending himself from such charges. The Articles of Religion of the Church of England and the Homilies were adopted in the 16th century. Smith writes that he is accusing Wesley not of deviating from those, but of deviating from the doctrines as actually preached in the 18th century Church of England, which presumably did not reflect the official doctrinal standards.

Wesley replies:

Well, how blind was I! I always supposed, till the very hour I read these words, that when I was charged with differing from the Church, I was charged with differing from the Articles and Homilies. And for the compilers of these, I can sincerely profess great deference and veneration. But I cannot honestly profess any veneration at all for those Pastors of the present age, who solemnly subscribe to those Articles and Homilies which they do not believe in their hearts. Nay, I think, unless I differ from these men (be they Bishops, Priests, or Deacons) just as widely as they do from the Articles and Homilies, I am no true Church-of-England man.

This exchange struck me as quite similar to our situation in the United Methodist Church. We have our doctrinal standards that were established a 200 years ago. By every official word, they are the standard of teaching in our churches. But they bear little actual influence throughout a great number of our churches.

To be a true United Methodist, then, should we reflect the preaching and teaching of our day or — if it differs — the doctrinal standards set out in our Book of Discipline?

UM doctrine and atonement

Does the United Methodist Church endorse a theory of atonement?

I’ve often been told that the UMC has never canonized a single theory of atonement. We view all theories as contributing part of the overall understanding of what Christ accomplished on the cross.

But is that really true? Are all ways of talking about the atonement in keeping with United Methodist doctrine? Here are words from our Book of Discipline’s section on doctrinal standards that interpret the meaning of the the cross.¹

From Article II of the United Methodist Articles of Religion:

“The Son … who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual sins of men.”

From Article VII of the United Methodist Confession of Faith:

“We believe that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. The offering Christ freely made on the cross is the perfect and sufficient sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, redeeming man from all sin, so that no other satisfaction is required.”

I’m not sure that either or both of these fit with one of the well known theories of atonement, but they do appear to set out some basic building blocks.

Jesus Christ was a sacrifice, according to both of these, a sacrifice for sin. His sacrifice redeemed humanity. The synonyms for “redeem” include ransom, rescue, save, and deliver. By this sacrifice the Father was reconciled to us. The Father was put back in friendship or harmony with us, to use the dictionary definition of reconcile.² This sacrifice served as satisfaction for the sins of the whole world.

I’m still learning about atonement theories, but it appears that any United Methodist discussion of atonement must be one that can accommodate notions of sacrifice, redemption, reconciliation, and satisfaction.

---

¹ Of course, moral influence theory (among others?) does not focus solely on the cross, but generally the death of Christ is considered important to understanding atonement.

² Morgan Guyton points out that this is an interpretation from the language in the Articles of Religion in which the Father is reconciled to us. The language in the Confession of Faith differs. It says God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. How that differs from the Articles creates a field of meanings within which the UM conversation should take place. At least it seems to me.

Outgrowing my past

My past haunts me some times. You see, I used to be a journalist with a bent toward investigative journalism. I never worked at a paper large enough to have a full-time investigative reporter, so it was always something I tried to work into my other duties.

Here is one of the key moves in investigative work. You find out what is supposed to happen, and then see if it did. For instance, someone says there is something fishy in the city parking operation. First thing you do is find out the laws and regulations that have to do with that area. You find out everyone who has a responsibility for oversight of that office. You look for policies and statements about what is supposed to happen. Then you start trying to find out if reality matches up to the expectations.

And this has gotten me trouble ever since I started trying to figure out the ways and means of the United Methodist Church. I started, you see, by reading the Book of Discipline and — because of what the BOD said about doctrine — the works of John Wesley. Yes, I’m the guy who used to show up at church finance committee meetings with my BOD in my hands.

My family attributes this to youthful enthusiasm. I’m not young, but I was baptized 12 years ago, so I’m still a pre-teen United Methodist. Sometimes we children misunderstand the way the world really works. We believe stories we are told.

Anyone who knows about the UMC is aware that trying to compare the reality of the church with the jumble of aspirations, arguments, and silliness in the BOD is an exercise only for the foolish. Only parts of it bind very much and then only when rules are needed to keep the trains running more or less on time.

Because of my “how is it supposed to be?” approach, I used to get upset when bishops denied the resurrection or megapastors dedicated infants or congregations and pastors called the denomination a pack of bigots and vowed to violate church law. This kind of stuff upset me. When the local churches I have served groused about paying apportionments or using the United Methodist Hymnal or sending someone to annual conference, I always explained that we are a connectional church bound by a common discipline.

Yes, I was that naive.

But I’m trying to get better.

‘Those who follow the Discipline are called Methodists’

Former bishop of my conference Woodie White writes a fascinating peek into Methodist (pre-UM) history and the lesson he learned about the power of Methodist polity. Yes, polity.

Here is the grabbing paragraph near the beginning for white guys like me who were born as the great battles of the Civil Rights era were being won.

White writes of a 1963 meeting with a pastor of a segregationist Methodist church.

The pastor’s congregation, sadly, like a number of Methodist congregations at the time, had voted that no black people would be welcomed or admitted to public worship.

White recounts the exchange in which he read from the Social Creed of the Methodist Episcopal Church and part of the Book of Resolutions. The white pastor announced that he was not compelled to follow those because they are not church law. White asked whether he would follow such pronouncements if they were the law of the church. The pastor said he would.

White reflects:

The conversation with a pastor who would be willing (however reluctantly) to change a way of life, traditions and long-held views because the Methodist Church through its polity commanded that he go another way, was compelling to me. I began to see the power and potential of using polity for good, and silently vowed to employ it to encourage what I considered a true expression of the gospel, consistent with the message and ministry of Jesus.

Our United Methodist polity has been much under discussion and debate in the last several months, as a result of General Conference actions and Judicial Council decisions. To be sure, as from the early days of the church, Christians often differ as to what is in fact consistent with Christ’s teachings in the Gospels.

But United Methodism has a self-correcting polity. Every four years we open the Book of Discipline and seek to express in it what we believe is the best and clearest expression of Christ in contemporary society.

Sometimes we get it right. And sometimes, many believe, we get it wrong. I pray that as United Methodism continues to engage in the quest to find a “better way,” we remember that what “connects our Connection” is our polity, through the Book of Discipline.

One might say: Those who follow Jesus are called Christians, those who follow Wesley are called Wesleyans, and those who follow the Discipline are called Methodists.

A Methoblogger on GBCS

Dan Dick has joined the General Board of Church and Society in the United Methodist Church. His first board meeting inspired a post defending the GBCS and expressing dismay over some of its critics.

The comments thread contains the predictable but illustrative display of UM political division with left and right defending or criticizing the board in ways that are probably familiar to most Christians who have had much engagement with church and politics.

If you are not familiar with GBCS, it is the board that articulates and advocates social positions of the church. It is often criticized for its positions by theological and political conservatives who see in many of its declarations and public statements as too liberal. Its defenders, like Dan in his post, see the work of the board as the living out of Old Testament and Gospel mandates to defend the poor, promote peace, and resist injustice.

One interesting comment on Dan’s post comes from Tom Lambrecht, a conservative United Methodist pastor. He proposed an alternative method of operation for the GBCS:

Where GBCS could serve us well is to foster discussion of alternative means to a common goal. Instead, BCS tends to adopt one particular philosophical approach to solving social problems, namely, a big-government, semi-coercive approach. That is why many people equate the UMC’s social positions with the Democratic Party platform.

GBCS should recognize that there is more than one way to skin a cat. Exploring alternative solutions, rather than emphasizing only one course of action, would gain GBCS credibility with people in the pew.

My first thought when I read that was that it would be a good idea to do this.

My second thought was that this sounds very much like the spirit of the failed Adam Hamilton and Mike Slaughter amendment on sexuality at General Conference 2012. I do not know Lambrecht’s position on that amendment, but I suspect he opposed it.

For my part, I am vexed at times by the positions the GBCS takes that go beyond what I can see in official UM teaching, but I do admire much of what the board advocates in many areas. In the end, my biggest complaint about the board is that it appears to me to be largely impotent. I’m not sure if it can point to any actual impact it has had other than going along and shouting “us, too” or “please, no” as some piece of policy or legislation was adopted.

I respect Dan Dick for calling things as he sees them. I will look forward to hearing his impression of the actual work and accomplishments of the board in the years ahead.

DeLong covenant document criticizes UMC

When Amy DeLong was convicted in a church trial of violating the Book of Discipline by conducting a same-sex wedding ceremony, she was given a 20-day suspension and a homework assignment. In the words of the news story about the penalty her task was to produce:

A written document initiated by DeLong that will outline procedures for clergy in order to help resolve issues that “harm the clergy covenant, create an adversarial spirit or lead to future clergy trials.” The document, the jury wrote, must be informed by the Bible, the 2008 Book of Discipline, Judicial Council rulings and other relevant materials.

The document she eventually produced was approved by a vote in the Wisconsin Annual Conference clergy session.

Here the document is.

To give you a taste of it, here is the third paragraph:

Though I cannot anticipate the many and varied reactions to this document, I hope that those already working diligently to challenge our church’s unjust policies and practices will be strengthened to continue their endeavors. I hold such hopefulness cautiously because I know that there will be those from the religious right who will use my words as springboards from which to launch further campaigns of hate against Gay and Lesbian people, and there will be progressives who will continue to be unwilling to take real risks for the cause of justice and will simply persist with their naïve and inadequate platitudes about inclusiveness and dialogue.

It is a breath-taking document when read as the outcome of a guilty verdict. Not a single sentence in the document acknowledges that DeLong did anything wrong in violating her ordination vows. Quite to the contrary, the document takes to task the denomination, conservatives, moderates, and even insufficiently militant progressives. It is a sustained repudiation of the law DeLong was convicted of breaking and an attack on the church as a whole. It makes passing comparisons of the UMC with apartheid South Africa and Hitler’s Germany. It calls out the Council of Bishops as abdicating conscience and integrity by upholding the Book of Discipline.

I am at a loss to understand why the clergy session of the Wisconsin Annual Conference would adopt such a document. Would a candidate for ordination in Wisconsin who wrote these words get favorable marks from the Board of Ordained Ministry?

Jurisdictions are not central conferences

Retired UMC elder Gil Caldwell raises in the UM Reporter a line of argument that I have seen cropping up in a few places.

Paragraph 543.7 of the Book of Discipline, page 346 says this of Central Conferences: “A central conference shall have power to make such changes and adaptations of the Book of Discipline as the special conditions and the mission of the church in the area require ….” If we are  serious about “the special conditions and the mission of the church” in the Western, Northeastern and North Central Jurisdictions where states and the District of Columbia have approved or are considering marriage equality for same sex couples, then these Jurisdictions are challenged to preserve the mission and ministry of The United Methodist Church vis-a-vis same sex couples through affirmation and action.

The language that permits central conferences to modify parts of the Book of Discipline to meet needs of annual conferences outside the United States has attracted attention as an important issue¹. General Conference authorized a study to determine exactly what changes have been made in different central conferences. This is important work as we come to terms with being a global church. It may or may not reveal problems that need further attention. It may also clear up some rumors.

But I do not understand arguments like the one raised by Caldwell. A jurisdiction in the United States is not a central conference. They each have their own governing provisions in the Constitution and other sections of the Book of Discipline. I suspect anyone who has read the Book of Discipline or taken a UMC polity course knows this. The argument Caldwell is making was an argument that should have been made at General Conference. Calling on jurisdictional conferences to void the Book of Discipline makes no sense to me.

---

¹Here is the full sentence from the Book of Discipline (2008) that Caldwell quotes in part: “A central conference shall have power to make such changes and adaptations of the Book of Discipline as the special conditions and the mission of the church in the area require, especially concerning the organization and administration of the work on local church, district, and annual conference levels, provided that no action shall be taken that is contrary to the Constitution and the General Rules of The United Methodist Church, and provided that the spirit of connectional relationship is kept between the local and the general church.” Taken as a whole, this sentence is hardly a green light for massive changes in church doctrine.

Powers of central conferences

The Constitution of The United Methodist Church outlines the powers and duties of central conferences. These provisions are repeated and expanded upon in later sections of the Book of Discipline. In this post, I am going to look at one paragraph and some of the Judicial Council decisions connected to it. (Disclaimer: I am no lawyer. This is may lay reading of the materials.)

¶543 of the 2008 Book of Discipline lays out the powers and duties of central conferences. I will quote some of the passages that appear to relate to recent discussion on this blog about the flexibility that central conferences have to change the Book of Discipline.

7. A central conference shall have power to make such changes and adaptations of the Book of Discipline as the special conditions and the mission of the church in the area require, especially concerning the organization of administration of the work on local church, district, and annual conference levels, provided that no action shall be taken that is contrary to the Constitution and the General Rules of the United Methodist Church, and provided that the spirit of connectional relationship is kept between the local and the general church. Subject to this restriction, a central conference may delegate to an annual conference within its boundaries the power to make one or the other of the changes and adaptations referred to in this paragraph, upon the request of such annual conference.

I’m not a lawyer, but I do see words and phrases here that you could drive a truck through if you had a mind to.

Help with polity question

I need the help of someone who knows United Methodist polity better than I do.

A question has been raised on another post about the relationship between the Book of Discipline and Central Conferences (Do we still call them that? A second polity question.).

How much independence from the provisions of the Book of Discipline do these conferences have? Different people have heard different things including — it is limited to issues relating to legal matters in other countries and issues such as tenure of bishops or it includes cultural variations such as allowing clergy to practice polygamy.

So, who can clear this up?