Jason Woolever looked at the official doctrine of the UMC as stated in The Book of Discipline and concluded:
As I examine these doctrines, it seems that it would not be possible for an honest unorthodox, nonevangelical to be ordained as a United Methodist pastor.
O ye of little faith, Jason.
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
hey john, did you see the word honest in there?
Surely you're not suggesting that candidates for the ordained ministry might falsely take the oaths of ordination, implying that they believe in doctrines that they do not?
Sure it would be simple, if there are honest unrothodox, nonevangelicals on the Board of Ordained Ministry.
The fear I have as I sit before the BOM is that my interview team will include more unitarians than "honest" United Methodists. I lost more sleep praying about that than the quality of my work.
rightly so, rightly so. the whole head is sick. luckily mine was very wesleyan. a friend told me that God always gives us one friend on our interviewing committees. i hope it happens for you.
All is relative, my opinion is just as valid as your opinion. My interpretation of the virgin birth, divinity of Christ and the resurrection is just as true as yours, so when I say I believe in these doctrines, I am saying that I believe my opinion, not yours.
This is theological reflection in the post-modern age.
Isn't postmodern epistemology fun? You can lie, but it's not really lying. You're just speaking "your truth".
things do be getting more slippery as we wade further into post-modernism. i was thinking about it the other day. what if the concept of absolute trust disappears completely? then i thought, if Christ is true, then he'll prevail no matter what.
i should say "since Christ is true"
I certainly can't speak for all the various groups that call themselves "postmodern," but there are some people out there who think differently and are still believe in truth.
I believe in what you would call "objective truth" - I just think that we've been wrong about some of it in the past, and it's entirely possible that we're wrong about some of it now. I don't think that makes me a heretic or unscholarly. I just think that maybe we could be wrong about some of what constitutes "accepted doctrine" and I hesitate to jump to the conclusion that anyone who doesn't agree with it isn't thinking or doesn't believe in truth.
And Jason, isn't "the whole head is sick" one of those sweeping generalizations that you were trying to defend against on your blog?
yeah, yeah, definitely. i'm no better for sure!
Can someone explain this very briefly to me?
Sure, Richard. You see, there are many UMC pastors who believe in teachings irreconcilible with Wesleyanism or even just Christianity.
Here's an example. About a week and a half ago, I spent a week at the UMC seminary known as Garrett-Evangelical. While there, I encountered many people who said that all religions are equally true and that Jesus is no the only path to God. These folk are future UMC pastors.
Oh John,
That makes me want to cry.
Thanks for explaining it. Ok, I definitely see what you're saying, John. However, one thing that I, and my parents (both ex-Catholics), love about the Methodist religion is the fact that there is a lot less of dictation to you about what you "have to believe" in the UMC. Certainly, there are key points which we must agree on fundamentally, but I've always felt that Methodism has allowed for us to connect with God and understand him on a more personal level.
Is this something that you agree or disagree with?
I agree that in Methodism there is a lot less dictation about what you have to believe. However, I think that this trend is bad, rather than good. To put mildly.
what many people "love about the UMC" is that it allows one to consider oneself a Christian and have the benefits of a Christian community, while theologically offering the same thing that the Unitarian Universalist Church does. beliefs that Wesley thought we should charitable about were not things like the virgin birth or the substitutionary atonement, but things like predestination and universal atonement.
Jason,
You're right. I've seen that trend over and over in the UMC church. As a pastor, people have told me the reason they joined the UMC is because "you allow drinking," "you don't have rules," "you can believe whatever you want," etc etc. I don't think antinomianism is what Wesley had in mind when he said, "Think and let think."
George Lindbeck, in his important book, The Nature of Doctrine, defines “doctrine” as “communally authoritative teachings regarding beliefs and practices that are considered essential to the identity or welfare of the group in question. They may be formally stated or informally operative, but in any case they indicate what constitutes faithful adherence to a community.”[1] We in the United Methodist Church need to consider such a definition..
Lindbeck makes an important point in stating that doctrine is “communally authoritative teachings.” The second part of this sentence is obvious – doctrines are “teachings regarding beliefs and practices.” Yet we need to understand they are “communally authoritative.” Another important point Lindbeck makes in this definition is that doctrine impacts both identity and practice of a community: “indicating what constitutes faithful adherence to a community.”
In a culture which puts high value on individualism this is a problematic definition of doctrine. We, as individuals and as groups, have a difficult time agreeing upon and accepting this communal responsibility. We have been taught to prize our opinions (despite that fact that everyone has one) and autonomy. We do not respond well to hierarchy or authority. We, as humans, desire control, influence, and power. We don’t want someone else telling us “how it is” and “what is what.” Yet, for doctrine to be as effective as it is essential, submission to a communal understanding is crucial. This is part of the problem in the United Methodist Church, not that we lack good doctrine, but that we embrace individuals who refuse to hold them as communally authoritative.
As a probationary elder in the UMC, in process for ordination, I am required to answer questions from our Book of Discipline about how I understand our doctrines. However, Craig, I refuse to answer by offering up “my opinion.” In the end, “my opinion” doesn’t really matter. What should be more important to those who decide my future as a pastor in this denomination is whether or not Chris Roberts, as a clergyperson in the United Methodist Church, will uphold the communally authoritative teachings… essential to the identity and welfare of the United Methodist Church and our Wesleyan tradition. It should be the will of the Church at-large that I, as an ordained minister in the UMC, faithfully uphold that which “constitutes faithful adherence to the community.” I will teach and practice in the churches to which I am appointed less my opinions of various doctrines and more what our church holds as formally stated or informally operative doctrine. The good news is that “my opinions and beliefs” match the “doctrines” of the UMC (and if they don’t then I should not be permitted to continue in this ordination process).
It confuses me that so many ordained clergy in our church have such strange opinions on matters of our doctrine. How they ever became ordained is beyond me… except that the people in charge also hold their personal opinions as more important than our doctrine. It is past time that the UMC review issues of doctrine and our clergy... all our clergy.
I'm not sure why people who don't like UM doctrine want into our clergy anyway. it seems a violent position to come in with the purpose of destroying the intent for which the communion was created. especially when the unitarian option is available.
Rev C.S.
The comment I previously wrote is not my position, it is a position that I see in many of the Emergent and liberal UM's. I consider myself probably more conservative than most UM clergy.
Craig, sorry I mis-read your sarcasm. -- Chris
My own experience has been talking with people at my seminary (Perkins) who are actually planning to lie to their BOM - b/c they come from conferences that are "too conservative." It is beyond me how one can begin one's work as a minister of the Lord (presumably the one from the Bible), by speaking lies, and taking an oath (in the ordination vows) before God and his church to uphold doctrines and discipline that one believes to be wrong and has no intention to uphold. I mean would these same people plan to lie when they take their wedding vows?? (maybe so according to statistics on clergy divorce rates) No wonder so much of our ministry seems devoid of divine blessing. I am also entirely baffled that such people do not join the Unitarians, since they seem so conscientious on other issues of (what they see as) justice.
that is so wrong.
I find it very interesting that every comment in this section is from men.
Just sayin'.
Hey, who let the chick in?!
Reading all of this makes me sad. The future does not look good. John Wesley would certainly not recognize the denomination that bears his name.
Post a Comment