General Conference reflections

The General Conference is the highest body in United Methodism that alone can determine church teaching and practice (traditionally, 'doctrine and discipline').  The 2016 General Conference finished its quadrennial meeting last week in Portland, Oregon.  I did not attend General Conference (GC), nor did I watch it on live-stream.  Like probably many reading this post, I followed the events of GC as well as the interpretation and comments on those events through social media.

So what happened at General Conference?

First my 2 cents on GC; then some reflections from prominent leaders who were there:

Maintaining and Strengthening traditional/catholic/evangelical teachings:

The Church decided to maintain its current classical and Biblical teaching on marriage and sexuality; the church strengthened the measures to hold bishops accountable to that teaching; the church strengthened its pro-life witness (including an improved statement on bio-ethics) and its anti-pornography witness.  We also decided to add 5 new bishoprics to the continent of Africa in 2020, which is desperately needed from an oversight point of view because of the tremendous growth there, but is also expected to move the make-up of the council of bishops in an evangelical and traditionalist direction.
For orthodox and evangelical Wesleyan Christians who are committed to maintaining the faith that was 'once delivered to the saints' (Jude 3) all of this is very positive.

Appointing a "Way Forward" Commission: 

While many of us wondered going into General Conference if the United Methodist Church would split this year, the very real possibility of a schism seems to have been averted by the decision of the GC to ask the bishops to appoint a commission to review our church's teaching and disagreements over sexual morality and recommend a way forward - perhaps at a specially called General Conference in a couple years.

It is unclear if this "way forward" means recommending some kind of segregation of liberals and conservatives into parallel jurisdictions within Methodism, or splitting into separate denominations, or simply recommending some radical change or minor tweak our official teachings in some way.
What the commission recommends, who is on it, what will happen to judicial complaints in the meantime, and even if there will actually be a special called General Conference (and if so, which delegates would go) all remains to be seen, and so for the moment liberals/progressives and conservatives/traditionalists are all currently waiting to see what will happen next (rather than working out the details of a schism).

Some of the more cynical among us (both liberal and conservative) have asked whether this move to create a commission is simply an institutional band-aid, an attempt by the bishops to "kick the can down the road a couple of years" and put off doing anything decisive.  Some have also wondered if the special called General Conference - a major selling point in this plan - will ever actually be convened (only the bishops have the authority to call such an extra-ordinary meeting).  Some conservatives (apparently unhappy with this commission idea) have reminded us that the only true "way forward" for the Church is the "narrow way" of Jesus Christ (see Mt. 7:13-29).

Looking to the Future:

It seems clear that The United Methodist Church will become a more and more orthodox and evangelical denomination over time (though not, I trust, 'fundamentalist' in the American sense**), as the overseas & non-Western parts of the Church continue to experience explosive growth (regions which have strong traditionalist as well as Charismatic leanings).  If the mood of the GC was overwhelmingly traditionalist in Portland even after the US Supreme Court decision last year, even after several prominent and respected pastors and bishops called for the Church to liberalize our teachings, even after the enormous pressure from liberal groups and protesters going into this conference - if, in spite of all of this, the GC voted down every single piece of Progressive/liberal legislation, how then do we expect it play out in 4 years when we are a majority non-American church, or in 8 years when we are a majority African church?    

It seems our church's teachings on these issues are not likely to get any more liberal - in fact the opposite may well happen.  If then, the liberal/progressive wing of the church is not willing to live by the current teachings, I suspect some kind of division or split is inevitably going to happen; the question is whether it will be an internal segregation into parallel jurisdictions within United Methodism (essentially abandoning our current connectional church structure for some kind of federation) OR an outright split into two denominations OR a "quiet schism" as members and clergy who can no longer abide by church teaching quietly trickle out on their way to other denominations.

Those are my 2 cents on GC2016 (which may not be worth much more than that).

Here are a couple of reflections from people who were actually there:

THIS PIECE is from Dr. David Watson, who was my Greek Professor in Seminary at SMU, who is now dean of one of our Methodist seminaries (United Seminary), and who has become an important voice for classical Christian orthodoxy.
This is a great piece you should read.

Then there is this video from The Good News renewal and reform group that was at GC representing "Biblical, orthodox, classical, Wesleyan faith" in The United Methodist Church.




** While some use "evangelical" and "fundamentalist" as synonymous, I believe this misses some important distinctions and leads to confusion and ignorance rather than clarity and understanding.  

Not all conservatives are "ultra-conservative."  
Indeed United Methodist "conservatives" support the ordination of women, while fundamentalists do not.  
United Methodist evangelicals say that God loves all people, Christ died for all people, and all people are welcome in our churches, while "ultra-conservatives" (of the Westboro Baptist Church sort) carry signs saying that God hates homosexual people.  
United Methodist traditionalists believe in ecumenism, that is, seeking deeper cooperation and unity with other Christian denominations, while fundamentalists generally see all Christians who do not belong to their own little group as gross heretics, filled with spiritual darkness.  
United Methodist evangelicals believe in the benefits of education and the academic study of Scripture, and are open to spiritual, allegorical, and other kinds of non-literal interpretations, while fundamentalists tend to insist that every word be interpreted in a "literal" sense regardless of genre differences within Scripture.  
United Methodist traditionalists believe in using the whole Tradition of the universal ("catholic") church to help us rightly interpret Scripture, while fundamentalists generally pour scorn of "traditions" of any sort (without realizing that this basic outlook is itself a tradition) - therefore orthodox United Methodists cherish the ancient Creeds while fundamentalists reject them as "Romish corruptions".  
While fundamentalists emphasize legalistic purity, evangelical Methodists seek to balance the call to holiness and justice with the message of mercy and grace.  

There are many more distinctions one could make between United Methodist evangelicals/traditionalists/orthodox and fundamentalists, but the point is we should be careful how we use these labels if we care about both clarity and charity.

John Wesley Video

This coming Tuesday (May 24th) is Aldersgate Day, when Methodists (and Anglicans too) recall how the power of the Holy Spirit descended upon John Wesley at a Bible study at Aldersgate street in 1738.  Wesley is often considered the "father of Methodism."  His experience at Aldersgate has been interpreted in different ways - as his first genuine conversion to faith in Christ (though he was already a pastor at the time) or as his "baptism in the Holy Ghost," or simply as a special outpouring to prepare him for mission.

In any case it is clear from Wesley's own account that he left that Bible study with a new sense of assurance about his salvation and his relationship with Christ and also that he left that Bible study with a new fire for the mission of God.  Here is his own account of that night:

In the evening I went very unwillingly to a society in Aldersgate Street, where one was reading Luther’s preface to the Epistle to the Romans. About a quarter before nine, while he was describing the change which God works in the heart through faith in Christ, I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone, for salvation; and an assurance was given me that He had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death.

I began to pray with all my might for those who had in a more especial manner despitefully used me and persecuted me. I then testified openly to all there what I now first felt in my heart... 

I have seen several films about the Wesley brothers and the revival that they helped lead.  A few years ago the feature-length film called Wesley was released.  I must say that it suffered from low production value (like many "Christian films") and in my view the story pacing was rather slow and felt bogged down by too many details.  Actually I think the animated short film The John Wesley Story was actually more interesting to watch, even though it was clearly aimed at younger audiences (I used it in a recent confirmation class).

I recently saw this video posted on Facebook, which is a very short documentary about John Wesley's impact on society and history.  It looks like it may be cut from a longer film, because it feels a bit dis-jointed at places; yet it does have some really nice visuals that are well-done.  Enjoy!

        

Bishop Jones on Methodist Unity

In the liturgy for the consecration of bishops in our Book of Worship, the ministry of the bishop is described (in part) as follows:

"You are called to guard the faith, to seek the unity, and to exercise the discipline of the whole Church; and to supervise and support the Church's life, work, and mission throughout the world."

The idea that bishops are the primary guardians of the faith and unity and ordered life of the church is not a Methodist innovation, but has been inherited from the ancient and ecumenical church.  And yet in recent years more and more bishops have undermined the unity and the faith of the denomination by putting their private agendas, opinions, and goals above the common and historic teachings of the church.  Examples range from Bishop Sprague who very publicly denied the Resurrection, Virgin birth, atonement, and the Deity of Christ to Bishop Talbert who has now repeatedly officiated at same-gender civil 'marriages' in direct contradiction to the very Discipline and Covenant that all of our bishops vowed to uphold at their consecrations.

In these instances many spoke out calling for accountability, while some other bishops and clergy stood by silently doing nothing, or in some cases even cheered these acts of infidelity.

People have been wringing hands for years - and especially in the last couple of years - over the unity of The United Methodist Church, asking if the denomination will split.
I believe that unity and relationship is always based upon trust.  According to the classic Protestant teaching of justification by faith (affirmed by Methodists) it takes faith - that is, trust - for me to be in right relationship with God.  Indeed it truly takes trust for me to be in a healthy relationship with anyone else.  How can a wife have a good and life-giving relationship with her husband if she thinks he is cheating on her - if she doesn't trust him?  The answer is that she cannot.

How can we work side by side in common mission if we do not trust one another?  How can we follow the missional leadership of our bishops if we are suspicious of their motives?  We obviously cannot.

There is a crisis of trust in The United Methodist Church right now that is a direct result of the kinds of actions mentioned above and the "mixed signals" coming from other leaders in response to these actions.
If the denomination does split it will be because we simply no longer trust one another.

There is only one way that trust can be regained, and it is simple: practice honest.  Let your "yes" mean "yes" as the Lord Jesus says.  Do not make a rash vow to God you do not intend to keep as the Book of Ecclesiastes says.  Simple honesty and integrity is the only way this crisis of trust in our church will begin to heal.

If bishops and other officials will simply uphold their vows, keep their promises, and do those things that they swore an oath to do (regardless of their own personal opinions) it will go a long way toward rebuilding trust.  If they do not - if they find some rationalization for breaking their promises to the covenant community - then I believe a breakdown of the covenant that binds us together (and thus, a denominational break-up) is inevitable.

One of our most outstanding and godly (as well as scholarly) bishops these days is Scott Jones.  He has written a frank and much-needed post on this very issue.  Here is the opening section (read it all HERE):

During the last four months, I have had multiple invitations to break my vows. Many people have suggested that, in the name of protesting against perceived injustice, I should disobey the discipline of The United Methodist Church and violate the sacred promises I have made at two key points in my life — ordination as an elder and consecration as a bishop.

I decline those invitations.

I will keep my promises.

I will be faithful to God’s calling on my life as a leader in our church.

Because American culture so little values obedience and discipline today, and because too many persons in the UMC are following the culture in this direction, it is important that I explain why such a refusal to participate in disobedience is the right course of action...

Read the full Article HERE.