The Struggle Between Covenant & Schism in the United Methodist Church

22 Saturday Jul 2017

Posted by Andrew C. Thompson in Christianity & Culture, Ecclesiology, John Wesley, United Methodist Church

Returning from annual conference each year offers a great opportunity for reflection on the unity of the church in her witness and mission. Our annual conference session a few weeks ago in Arkansas was especially encouraging.

The Holy Spirit was present in worship, the teaching was encouraging, and conference initiatives like 200,000 Reasons to Fight Childhood Hunger were inspiring. It all made me excited to be among the People Called Methodists!

And yet, you only have to look more broadly within the United Methodist Church to see ways that the church is fracturing. Particularly in other parts of the United States, the actions of some bishops, boards of ordained ministry, and whole annual conferences are putting stress on the United Methodist connection in ways that threaten to tear the church apart.

The actions in question are related to the way that some forces in the church have refused to recognize the authority of the General Conference, Judicial Council, and the Book of Discipline itself. When that happens, the very idea that we are a church bound by a common covenant starts to fracture.

The word that often comes up when talking with others about the current troubles in the UMC is “schism.” The word has to do with a split or a division. It’s also a loaded term, not to be taken lightly.

John Wesley had a perspective on schism that can help us think through what the word really means in a church context. That Wesleyan perspective offers us clarity in the present.

In his sermon “On Schism,” Wesley defines schism in the Bible as “a disunion in mind and judgment—perhaps also in affection—among those who, notwithstanding this, continued outwardly united as before” (¶I.2).

He’s talking about the way the word is used in 1 Corinthians, when the Apostle Paul is giving counsel to the Christians in Corinth about divisions in the church there. Wesley contends that true schism doesn’t happen at the point that a group of people leaves the church. Schism actually occurs before that—when the actions and attitudes of a group cause division within the body as it exists.

John Wesley (1703-1791)

Wesley’s point is that the biblical meaning of schism “is not a separation from any church … but separation in a church” (¶I.1).

Wesley is also unsparing in his criticism of such action. As he puts it, schism is “both evil in itself, and productive of evil consequences” (¶II.10). It is evil in itself because it constitutes a “grievous breach of the law of love,” tearing apart that which God desires to be united. And it is productive of evil consequences in that it leads to anger and resentment within the body of Christ.

The issues that have led to schismatic actions within the UMC are no secret. The primary issue is the way that people read the Bible and understand biblical authority. Closely related to that is how we identify and interpret the work of the Holy Spirit. And of course, the actual presenting issues are those related to God’s intention for our sexuality, the definition of marriage, and the standards for ordination.

The current fervor of progressive theology aims to force change on a United Methodist Church that has chosen, time and again, to affirm the traditional biblical understanding of marriage and sexuality (including all the points in our Book of Discipline that support traditional doctrinal positions). What is different now than in the past is the strategy being employed. Whereas once upon a time, opposing voices in the church bided their time and waited for the church to “catch up to the culture,” now they have determined to ignore church teaching and church polity to impose their own views by any means necessary.

The consequences of schism are always tragic—as John Wesley well knew. The Commission on a Way Forward has yet to report its work, and there is a General Conference called for 2019. Yet what hope does the church have if the very church leaders responsible for upholding the covenant we share treat it as if it is entirely optional? It is a vexing question.

There is either a covenant, or there is not. If there is a covenant, then there is a church. But if those within the covenant insist on willfully ignoring it, then the United Methodist Church will dissipate before our very eyes.

The great dilemma that those who believe in the covenant of the United Methodist Church are facing now is what we do when schism is forced upon us by the actions of those who seemingly don’t care about the consequences of what they are doing.

None of this is easy. But I am convinced that God is not finished with us. There will surely be a covenant to embrace and a church to serve when our current schism has been overcome. Veni Sancte Spiritus!

This essay also appeared in the Arkansas United Methodist newspaper’s July 7, 2017 edition.

Wesleyan Accent: The Word and The Spirit

10 Wednesday Aug 2016

Posted by Andrew C. Thompson in Church History, Ecclesiology, Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ, John Wesley, Wesleyan Accent, Wesleyan Theology

≈ Leave a comment

“Whate’er his Spirit speaks in me, must with the written Word agree.” –Charles Wesley

Many of the more contentious arguments in the church today are over social issues. That has certainly been the case for the United Methodist Church — the church I call home. Nowhere have the UMC’s internal debates over such issues been on clearer display than during its recent General Conference in Portland, Oregon.

The General Conference is the representative body of the 13+ million-member UMC. It meets once every four years. General Conference equips the general church for ministry by ordering its life and funding its ministries. It is also the body within the church that has the authority to write or alter canon law, which for Methodists is held in our Book of Discipline. So at least theoretically, the General Conference can vote to change everything from the church’s doctrinal understanding of the Trinity to how a local congregation handles estate bequests (though in the case of core Christian doctrine the bar on any substantive change is much higher and more complicated than a simple majority vote). Click here to continue reading…

_______________________________

Wesleyan Accent provides free and subscription resources for Christian spiritual formation, catechesis, and discipleship in the Wesleyan way. By clearly articulating the Wesleyan understanding of Christian faith, WA seeks to strengthen discipleship, empower mission and evangelism, cultivate ministry gifts of young leaders, and nurture the professional and service life of young theologians.

Andrew C. Thompson joined the writing team of WA upon its launch in the Fall of 2013. For the full catalog of his articles on the WA site, click here.

Connection — What it is, why it matters

04 Friday Apr 2014

Posted by admin in Ecclesiology, United Methodist Church

≈ 3 Comments

“Connection.”

It’s one of those words whose meaning is dependent on context.

If I tell you I’ve made a new connection with a colleague at work, you’ll probably ask me what his name is and how I came to meet him. If you call me on the phone and I remark that the connection is bad, you might blame it on the lack of a nearby cell phone tower.

Methodists have another use for that term, though. We refer to “the Connection” as a synonym for “the Church.”

Speaking about Methodism as a connectional movement goes all the way back to John Wesley. He referred to the group of preachers who were “in connexion” with himself, meaning that they were engaged in a common mission under his recognized leadership.

That sense of unity remained at the heart of the connectional idea after Wesley’s death, when leadership moved from Wesley the individual to the conference itself. American Methodism developed a multi-layered system of conferences. Methodist preachers became identified with the annual conferences where their membership was held, but from the year 1792 all the various annual conferences began to gather in a General Conference that met (and continues to meet) once every four years. The General Conference is the fullest expression of our connection, and it alone has the authority to speak for the whole Church.

Common witness

I have found both pastors and laypeople who think of the connectional nature of the Church primarily in terms of apportionments and other obligations to Methodist commitments beyond the local congregation. When we think of the connection as the thing that allows “them” to tell “us” what to do, resentment can build quickly.

The true heart of the Methodist connection is much different than that. Connectionalism means that we do not see ourselves operating as independent congregations (or pastors). We are engaged in common work. The local church is the most significant arena for making disciples (cf. Book of Discipline, Par. 120), but the local church is fundamentally connected to the whole Church’s mission and ministry. Common cause is essential—in doctrine, discipline and spirit.

Connectionalism is therefore the foundation of the entire Methodist conception of the Church. Our Book of Discipline refers to the connection as a “vital web of interactive relationships” (Par. 132) and describes each local congregation as “a connectional society of persons who have been baptized, have professed their faith in Christ, and have assumed the vows of membership in the United Methodist Church” (Par. 203). It is only because each of those congregations exists as part of a broader connection that the entire United Methodist Church can make a common witness to the world.

We can better understand our connectional nature if we contrast it with a popular alternative: congregationalism. In a congregational church, the highest level of authority is the local congregation itself.

Congregationalism teaches that a local church stands alone. It is not beholden to any authority greater than itself. According to this view, the congregation is the fullest expression of what the body of Christ is meant to be.

More than once in recent years, we have been witness to new church starts in the UMC that have broken away from the connection to organize themselves as independent congregations. That’s a tragic occurrence—and it shows how deeply we need the connectional identity to be planted and nurtured in the hearts of both pastors and their congregations. As a seminary professor, it is a reminder to me of the need for me to explain to my students the fundamentally connectional nature of Methodism.

Responsibility

There’s another “C” word related to connection that also figures prominently in the Bible. It can help us grasp what we mean by connectionalism. That word is “Covenant.”

A covenant is an agreement or pact of mutual trust, entered into by two or more parties who commit to abiding by the terms of their relationship and who pursue certain goods together by virtue of that commitment.

Covenants are contracts, in a certain sense. In a Christian framework, we would say that a covenant is a contract that is formed and maintained by steadfast love. This is the character of God’s relationship with us, as modeled in Scripture. It is also intended to be the character of each baptized Christian’s relationship within the body of the Church.

Methodists employ the idea of covenant when they speak of their connection. We are called into the covenant relationship of the connection. That’s the case for all members of the United Methodist Church—both laity and clergy. Our Discipline explains this feature of the Church: “United Methodists throughout the world are bound together in a connectional covenant in which we support and hold each other accountable for faithful discipleship and mission” (Par. 125).

The ordained elders and deacons of the Church have a special responsibility to our connectional life. Our ministers pursue their ministries in covenant with the whole Church, and they also live in covenant with one another to uphold one another “in covenant of mutual care and accountability” (Par. 303.3). The Discipline links the vitality of the Church itself with this aspect of ordination: “The effectiveness of the Church in mission depends on these covenantal commitments to the ministry of all Christians and the ordained ministry of the Church” (Par. 303.4).

We live in a time when the connection is under a great deal of strain, by forces both inside and outside the Church. We can endure this period of trial and perhaps come out of it stronger than we were before. But it will require all of us to recommit ourselves to our connectional covenant. If we find ourselves unable to abide within that covenant, on the other hand, then the very integrity of the connection itself will fly apart at the seams.

_____________________________

This article originally appeared in the Arkansas United Methodist newspaper’s April 4, 2014 edition. Reprinted with permission. You can read the article in its original form at this link.

The Church and Motherhood

12 Sunday May 2013

Posted by admin in Baptism, Ecclesiology, Pastoral Care

≈ Leave a comment

In September of 2010, my wife, Emily, gave birth to our first child, a daughter named Alice. This past February, we had twins. Their names are Stuart and Anna Charlotte.

I am finding fatherhood to be a singularly remarkable experience.

Like many new parents, I’ve experienced the wonder at new life, the thankfulness for the blessings of God and the intense love for a child of my own making.

But one of the most remarkable parts of all of it is in witnessing the relationship of mother and baby. Never was this impressed upon me more than when I saw Alice and Emily together in the days and weeks after Alice’s birth.

From conception to birth, and from birth to the present day, Alice has relied on her mom for everything she needs. In the broad sense, all life is a gift from God. But in the narrower and even biological sense, life is a gift that a mother gives her child.

To be present at each stage along the way is to bear witness to this astounding reality. Human babies are among the most helpless of all God’s creatures, both at birth and for a long time afterward. Without the enormous investment of the mother’s love, they simply couldn’t survive.

I’m not trying to diminish my own role in Alice’s life, or any father’s role in the life of his child. But I am saying that the order of creation puts mothers in a unique place with respect to the welfare of their children. For life and for the sustenance that life requires, the mother’s role is indispensable.

Necessary to faith

This recognition can give us a key insight into our connection to the church. We too often tend to see the church in functional terms: as a voluntary association, helpful to the Christian life in a variety of practical and spiritual ways but not absolutely necessary to our faith.

But the functional view of the church is a deep error, best seen when we look at how the church is understood as our mother in Scripture and tradition. In fact, the motherhood of the church is one of the most needed Christian teachings we should seek to better understand in the present.

The New Testament sees the church as the “New Jerusalem” that God is establishing to serve as the home for all his people. The Apostle Paul speaks of the church in this way when he says that, whereas those still under the law are in chains, “the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother” (Galatians 4:26).

The church’s motherhood is established first because the church is the bride of Jesus Christ. So in Revelation, John of Patmos tells us, “I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband” (Revelation 21:2).

We experience the church’s motherhood in our own lives first through baptism. Our confession about baptism is that it is a sign of new birth, which comes through water and the Holy Spirit. Baptism is a birth that comes through a sacrament of the church, so that the church is the mother of all Christian men and women.

Feeding her children

The early church fathers recognized the significance of the church as mother in a way we often do not. St. Augustine, for instance, writes that “those born of [the] flesh are not Christians, but become such afterwards through the motherhood of the Church.”

But the motherhood of the church extends beyond the sacrament of baptism as well. Just as a mother feeds her newborn baby by her own body, the church feeds her children through Scripture, prayer and especially through Holy Communion.

Life is given to us through our baptism, and the sustenance that life requires thereafter is given through the ministry of the church throughout our earthly sojourn.

If we reflect on the church as the mother who gives us birth and nurtures us as we travel the journey of our lives, we can begin to reverse the long and unfortunate trend to see the church as an optional part of our faith. It is the church that gives us the food of salvation.

That conviction seems especially appropriate now, and indeed at all times for Christians who await the coming of Jesus Christ, who is himself the bridegroom and who shows us the way to the New Jerusalem.

[Originally appeared in the United Methodist Reporter on November 24, 2010. The current form has been slightly altered from the original. Used by permission.]