I've said it before and I'll say it again: it is unacceptable for the value of human lives to be reduced to some notion of functionality. One rarely hears explicitly that the lives of the able-bodied and able-minded are more valuable than the lives of people with disabilities, but the idea is unquestionably "in the soup" of Western culture. It is deeply troubling to see this idea working itself out within our medical establishment. Please read this article on CNN describing the struggle of parents to save the life of their child, a child whose level of adult ability is yet undetermined.
Saturday, November 30, 2013
Friday, November 29, 2013
Christian Sorrow, Christian Hope
A reflection taken from a sermon I'm preaching this Sunday:
Sometimes
Christians, with all of the best of intentions, tell us that if we are sad, if
we lose our joy, it is somehow a lack of faith. This claim is wrong. Sometimes we
are sad, angry, or hurting because we are Christians, because we know how the
world should be and we contrast that to what is actually going on. Don’t we
sense righteous anger in the prophetic literature? Don’t we sense the pain the
psalms of lament? Remember Jesus weeping over Jerusalem, and Paul saying, “I
have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart” because most of Israel has
rejected her Messiah (Rom 9:2)?
Being a Christian doesn’t mean that you don’t
move through the range of life’s emotions, but that sadness is not the endgame.
Sadness and pain are real, but they are never absolute. Remember Paul’s words
to the Corinthians, “We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair;
persecuted but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying in
the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be made visible
in our bodies” (2 Cor 4:8-10).
Because
we bear Christ within us, we have hope. And that is what Advent is all about:
the promise and hope of a redeemer. Christ is the redeemer of all creation, and
to know Christ is to have hope. As we welcome Christ into the world in this
season of Advent, we do so as people who live in the hope of redemption. Do not
faint from fear and foreboding, for if you know Christ, you have hope.
Thursday, November 28, 2013
Grateful for Our Faith
Today I’m grateful for the faith of the Church. I’m grateful for this narrative of salvation
in which the God of all creation became human out of love for us, was born of a
virgin, and taught us how to live. This very God died on the cross in an act of
atonement for the sinful rebellion of humankind, and after three days rose from
the dead. God abides with us through the Holy Spirit, who teaches and
sanctifies us, forming us into the kind of people we were created to be. In due
season, Christ will come again, and we will live with God forever in the resurrection.
I’m grateful, moreover, for my colleagues at United who take
this narrative so seriously, who have given their life and work over to the guidance
of the Holy Spirit, and who have dedicated and rededicated themselves to the
training of spiritual leaders for the renewal of the Church. I’m grateful to be
part not just of a school, but a movement, a worshipping community, and a
community of theological friendship. God has brought a very special group of
people together at United.
It’s easy to miss these blessings in the midst of day-to-day
work, but I’m grateful for you, friends, as we seek communally to be
faithful to the leadings of the Holy Spirit.
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
Ever feel caught in the middle?
I‘m not the first person to observe that in the UMC our
church politics looks very much like secular politics. In both worlds, it is
the most extreme positions that grab headlines. Yet most people in the UMC
don’t fit neatly into the ideological polarities. As they think through the
vast array of issues that we face both in secular politics and the church, no
single political platform appears to have all the answers. Clearly, for some,
the cluster of ideas gathered at the polarities of the political/ideological
spectrum simply make sense in relation to one another. Pro-life,
pro-traditional family, anti-ACA, anti-gun control? Sure, why not? Pro-choice,
pro-gay marriage, pro-ACA, pro-gun control? Makes perfect sense, right? Well,
for some people, yes, it makes a lot of sense, but for others, not so much.
The ideas that are clustered together often have no organic
relationship to one another, yet they function quite powerfully as markers of
tribal identity. We call them “platforms” or “agendas” and lump them under
larger rubrics, such as “Democrat,” “Republican,” “conservative,” “liberal,”
“progressive,” “evangelical,” or some other such descriptor. It tends to be
important moreover, for members to promote the whole agenda, rather than just a
part of it. For example, when someone such as Jim Wallis claims to be
“evangelical” but dissents from many other evangelicals on matters of public
policy, his evangelical credentials are questioned or denied.
A challenge we face in the UMC is that our covenant includes
people from a variety of tribes, and the warfare that characterizes debates
around public policy very naturally makes its way into our denominational
discourse and politics. After all, the UMC, like the USA, makes policy
decisions based upon votes from elected representatives. I’m not saying this is a bad way of doing
things. I certainly don’t know of a better way. It does, however, have its own
liabilities.
Our tribal warfare in the UMC tends to be over matters of
practice, the kinds of things one finds in the world of secular politics: gay
marriage (and ordination), war, the ways in which we use money, and abortion.
We tend not to have doctrinal arguments because the place of doctrine has been
relativized by the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. De facto, then, we hold that ethics
is more important than doctrine. We argue vociferously about sexuality; rarely
do we become as animated about the doctrine of the Trinity.
This way of doing things, however, is backward. We would
have a much better chance of maintaining our unity were we to conceive
of our primary identity in terms of doctrine, rather than ethics or politics.
This has, in fact, been the way that the Church (the Church catholic, not the
UMC) has traditionally functioned, except for quite recently in mainline
Protestantism. The creeds of the Church are doctrinal statements. There has
never been a widely held creed of ethical behavior or moral imperatives.
Rather, the Church’s claims about God have always been central, and its moral
life has generally been a matter of debate and negotiation.
Let me put the matter differently: we have doctrinal standards in the UMC, but we have social
principles. A standard is a normative
measure of adequacy. A principle is a generally accepted truth upon which we
base other claims or actions. In its current iteration, the Discipline gives pride of place to
doctrine over ethics, while our denominational discourse functions in just the
opposite way.
I’m suggesting that the UMC should be a place in which we
front a deep and abiding commitment to the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation,
atonement, and the Resurrection. These doctrines are organically related to one
another. They make sense in relation to one another, and when we take one out
of the equation, the other doctrines make less sense. They are also embedded
within the Articles of Religion and Confession of Faith. Within these sets of
commitments, we can abide a great deal of debate and disagreement about a great
many issues, but at least we will have common doctrinal ground for our
discussion. If you are a committed Republican, a committed Democrat, a
progressive, an evangelical—or someone who doesn’t fit well into any of these
categories—you have a place in this community of Trinitarian faith.
Wesleyanism is a branch of the orthodox faith of the Church
with a heavy emphasis upon sanctification. It assumes all of the basic faith
claims of the Church’s creedal tradition, stressing the claim that the Holy
Spirit works progressively within us to recover the image of God that has been
tarnished by sin. Many have seen Wesleyanism as defined by a commitment to
Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. This is wrongheaded. Read the
Wesley corpus. Wesley was concerned about God and the ways in which God worked
in the lives of people. He cared about the poor, the last, and the least—because
of his prior commitment to the God who is revealed to us in Jesus Christ.
I don’t really know what to call such a position, one that
would be defined particularly by doctrinal claims but would have more room for
dialogue regarding the moral life of the church. It is neither particularly
conservative nor progressive. The term “evangelical” tends to carry with it a
conservative social ethic. I don’t like the terms “moderate” or “centrist”
because they sound like we are lukewarm in our convictions, when in fact that
may be the farthest thing from the truth.
Please hear me: I’m no antinomian. Our ethical claims are important. They are very important; but they are not as important as our claims about God. Unless we have a basic sense of who God is, what God is like, and how God has acted for our salvation, we cannot properly reflect as Christians upon our moral life together. The UMC has long privileged ethics rather than doctrine in its corporate discourse. This may be why things seem so fractious now: we haven’t historically had a clear sense of the basis of our unity.
Please hear me: I’m no antinomian. Our ethical claims are important. They are very important; but they are not as important as our claims about God. Unless we have a basic sense of who God is, what God is like, and how God has acted for our salvation, we cannot properly reflect as Christians upon our moral life together. The UMC has long privileged ethics rather than doctrine in its corporate discourse. This may be why things seem so fractious now: we haven’t historically had a clear sense of the basis of our unity.
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
Bishop Johnson on Keeping Covenant
I've been thinking about and praying for Bishop Johnson lately as she has dealt with church trials in the Eastern Pennsylvania Annual Conference. I have worked with Bishop Johnson on a number of occasions. She is perhaps the most visible advocate for people with disabilities in the United Methodist Church. I can't say enough about the significance of her ministry in the UMC. I believe she is one of the finest bishops in the connection. Recently she gave a wonderful sermon at a commencement ceremony at United Theological Seminary.
She gives us a lot to think about in this blog post on keeping covenant. I commend it to your reading.
Monday, November 25, 2013
N. T. Wright and the Ethics of Blogging
A couple of days ago I was invited by my former student Joel Watts to participate in a conversation with N. T. Wright and a few
bloggers. The event was, in part, to
promote Wright’s new book, Paul and the Faithfulness of God. Wright was on his game as usual. He commands an
incredible range of material and has an amazingly lively mind. It was a privilege to listen to him reflect on a variety of topics.
One of the topics that came up was, as one might expect at
such a gathering, the practice of blogging. If you spend much time on New
Testament and/or Christian blog sites, you know that Wright’s work comes up
quite often. He is one of the most visible and prolific Christian scholars of
our time. At times, he has been harshly criticized by people who find his claims
as a New Testament scholar and theologian disagreeable.
Disagreement, of course, can be a good thing. It can be a
healthy intellectual practice. There are, however, helpful and unhelpful ways
to disagree. Wright stated, “We badly need a new ethic of Christian blogging.”
In saying this, he is referring to the kinds of “scorched earth” practices one
sometimes encounters in the blogosphere. Bloggers need to represent others’
views accurately. The practices of
engaging in anonymous online “road rage” is neither fair nor productive. If you
say something on a blog, you should be happy to say it in a crowded room, face
to face. Anonymity in public discourse often gives license to unfair, inaccurate,
and inflammatory comments.
I’ve made the case on this blog before that we need to
invest ourselves deeply in intellectually virtuous habits of mind. (See the
post, “Agreeing to Disagree is Not Enough.") In the blogosphere, writers must be particularly self-conscious of this since there is no peer review prior to publication. Anyone can say basically anything. If our goal, however, is to advance public discourse, then it is imperative that we blog ethically. Many bloggers do this. Some do not. This will likely not change, but the more of us who are conscious of this, the better off our communities of discourse will be.
Wendy Deichmann: What's Right with Orthodoxy?
United Theological Seminary President Wendy Deichmann reflects in Catalyst on the virtues of Christian orthodoxy. This is definitely worth a read. You can find the article here.
Friday, November 22, 2013
So, we're talking about the Quadrilateral again?
Maybe I just don't get it.
It really could be that I don't get it.
But I just can't see how the Wesleyan Quadrilateral is
particularly useful for resolving theological questions. I can't see, moreover,
why we hold on to this concept as Wesleyans. Bear with me in a bit of
foolishness.
It is fairly well known that Wesley never articulated the
Quadrilateral. Rather, the Quadrilateral is a construct based upon Albert
Outler’s historical exegesis of Wesley. John Wesley was an Anglican, and Anglicans
of the eighteenth century, while distinct from Roman Catholics, were not
entirely like Continental Protestants, either. Remember, unlike other forms of
Protestantism, the Anglican Church did not separate itself from the Roman
Catholic Church over theological matters, but over matters of authority within
the Church. Richard Hooker, an Anglican “divine” (theologian) of the sixteenth
century, was instrumental in marking out the specifically Anglican way of
theological reflection. Hooker was dissatisfied with the Protestant notion
of sola Scriptura, according to which Scripture alone was the source and
norm of theological reflection. He claimed that there were two ways in which
the Holy Spirit led human beings into truth: (1) through divine revelation,
which comprised Scripture and tradition, and (2) through reason. This Anglican
approach to theology using a triad of resources (Scripture, tradition, reason)
represented a “middle way” between Roman Catholicism and Continental
Protestantism.
In Outler’s formulation, Wesley added to this trilateral the
element of experience, which in this context refers to the
believer's assurance of salvation. (By the way, I highly
recommend Kevin
Watson's recent post on the meaning of "experience" in the Wesleyan
Quadrilateral.) With the addition of experience, we
arrive at the Quadrilateral.
Did Wesley actually do this? Maybe. He doesn’t talk about
doing this. But it's important to keep in mind that the Anglican reliance on
Scripture, tradition, and reason was a way of maintaining continuity with
the major historic doctrines of the faith because sola Scriptura was
thought inadequate for doing so.
One formulation of the Quadrilateral made its way into
the Discipline during the 1972 General Conference, four years after
the formation of the United Methodist Church. However, until 1988 the formulation
of the Quadrilateral in the Discipline bore little resemblance to the
Anglican tradition that began with Hooker and was modified in Wesley’s corpus
of writings. Consider this statement from the 1984 Discipline (which
echoes the language from '72):
Since our “present existing and established standards of
doctrine” cited in the first two Restrictive Rules of the Constitution of The
United Methodist Church are not to be construed literally and juridically, then
by what methods can our doctrinal reflection and construction be most fruitful
and fulfilling? The answer comes in terms of our free inquiry within Christian
theology: Scripture, tradition, experience, reason. These four are
interdependent; none can be defined unambiguously. They allow for, indeed they
positively encourage, variety in United Methodist theologizing. Jointly, they
have provided a broad and stable context for reflection and formulation.
Interpreted with appropriate flexibility, self-discipline, and prayer, they may
instruct us as we carry forward our never-ending tasks of theologizing in the
United Methodist Church.
Every time I read this, I'm still flabbergasted by it.
(I've been wanting to use the term "flabbergasted" in a post
for some time. Thank you, '72 Discipline.) The reasons are too
numerous to go into here. One problem, however, is that, while we have
these four sources, there is no sense of how they are to be used. Heck, there's
no clear sense even of what they are ("none can be defined
unambiguously"), and we end up with a theological free-for-all, with no
common doctrinal identity. Yet the Anglican triad that Hooker formulated came
about as a means of expressing how Anglicans could maintain their
doctrinal identity, given their separation from the Roman Catholic Church and
their dissent from the Protestant concept of sola Scriptura. Further,
unlike the tradition that Wesley inherited, there is no understanding of divine
revelation embedded in this formulation of the Quadrilateral.
The language of the 2012 Discipline, which reflects the
changes made by the 1988 General Conference, expresses much more accurately a
notion that we could rightly call “Wesleyan”: “Wesley believed that the living
core of the Christian faith was revealed in Scripture, illumined by tradition,
vivified in personal experience, and confirmed by reason.”
Scripture and tradition, then, ostensibly establish the
parameters for Wesleyan belief. The faith that is expressed within these
parameters is made real for us in our experience of the Holy Spirit (through
assurance), and confirmed by reason. We have, then, much room for debate and
discussion, while maintaining a doctrinal identity that is rooted in Scripture
and illumined by the Church’s historic doctrines.
This sounds better, but it's still not enough. After all,
there are a variety of ways to interpret Scripture, and even if we say that we
interpret Scripture in light of tradition, tradition itself is such a broad
category as to be of very little help. Wesley generally meant to refer to the
"primitive church" of the first five centuries, and he was strongly
influenced by the Book of Common Prayer. In other words, Wesley, like the
Anglicans before him, assumed the Trinitarian, credal faith of the Church as he
made use of Scripture, tradition, and reason.
The Quadrilateral has ostensibly provided a way for people
to think for themselves, not to be governed by dogma. But in making this move,
other dogmas have simply filled the void. These are the dogmas of moralistic
therapeutic deism. Faith can lead you to do what is right, can bring you a
reasonable level of happiness, and involves a God who doesn’t bother too much
in the day to day goings on of our lives.
I've never known an argument to be resolved by appeal to the
Quadrilateral. In fact, the Quadrilateral, in its current iteration, cannot
serve as a tool to resolve theological and ethical debates because there is too
much latitude in the ways in which its four components are understood. The only
way the Quadrilateral can be useful is if it is deployed in a context in which
the credal faith of the church is already assumed. At that point, we share a
common set of theological assumptions and we are speaking a common theological
language. Without assuming the church's historic, orthodox faith claims, the
Quadrilateral will create far more confusion than it resolves.
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
Dear UMC: Please study the nature and function of Scripture
So, the Schaeffer trial is over.
The debate over human sexuality in the UMC is not.
I’ve been watching social media pretty closely during this
time. There are lots of hurt feelings and many people who feel a great distance
from one another in the denomination. The rhetoric has been wild. The emotions
have been strong. I wonder if we will have a chance to regroup, pray, and heal
before the next such controversy emerges.
There are numerous issues swirling about in the
controversies around Rev. Schaeffer and Bishop Talbert. One issue, of course,
has to do with human sexuality. That’s pretty obvious. One issue has to do with
the binding force of the Book of
Discipline. A third issue has to do with the interpretation of Scripture.
This third issue, spoken of the least in these
controversies, is perhaps the most significant. What we have seen recently is
that people of vastly different theological and ethical positions can and do
use Scripture in support of their arguments. Recently I’ve heard talk of “inerrancy”
in the midst of the conversation, a term that really doesn’t have much currency
in the UMC. (Insert indignant comments below.) Perhaps it's gaining traction because of the perceived vacuum of authority in the UMC. Perhaps there are other reasons.
The use of Scripture in theological debate to support
opposing positions is nothing new. Consider the Arian controversy of the fourth
century. It wasn’t just Athanasius and company who were using Scripture in
support of their claims. Arias and his partisans could quote Scripture with the
best of them. The debate could not be
settled by simple appeals to Scripture because Scripture lends itself to a
variety of interpretations.
Consider the following image. What do you see? Is this an image of the profiles of two faces or a chalice?
The interpretation of texts, including the text of the Bible, is rather like this. We may see the same set of texts but draw different conclusions from one another. This is not to say that there are not better and worse interpretations. I'm not arguing for some form of relativism here. Imagine a concert pianist playing a well-known concerto. We might say that there is no right way for the pianist to play the concerto, but there are of course many wrong ways. The interpretation of Scripture is rather like that, and that is why we need more common standards of interpretation within our communal life.
I’ve written before on the contributions of the biblical
scholar James Sanders. In particular, his two books Torah and Canon and Canon and Community are very helpful as
we think about the nature and function of Scripture. Sanders talks about
“sacred tensions” within the canon, and he describes the scriptural witness as
“variegated.” In other words, the Bible expresses a variety of perspectives
that have developed as people have prayed and reflected communally on the
mysteries of God. In addition to the subjective nature of interpretation, this
is another reason that Scripture can be used to support such different
theological and ethical positions.
Scripture is complex. The nature and function of Scripture
are not self-evident. Nevertheless, we deploy Scripture quite readily in
debates regarding complicated and multi-layered issues. This practice leads to increased entrenchment and misunderstanding, as well-intentioned people cannot see why others view things so differently than they do.
I have to admit, writing this makes me feel a bit vulnerable. The current climate of the UMC is so divisive that to raise questions regarding the authority of Scripture makes one suspect in many quarters. Let me be clear: I have spent the last twenty years working to teach and promote the Nicene-Constantinopolitan faith. My theological commitments are to the Trinity, the Incarnation, and Resurrection, not simply as metaphors, but as ontological realities. If that doesn't make me "orthodox" enough for you, so be it. I'll only note, however, that in the long history of the faith, the use of a doctrine of Scripture as a litmus test for orthodoxy is a rather new development, and, in my opinion, a negative one.
Denominationally, we need to talk about not just what the pages of Scripture say, but the way in which we interpret Scripture. Of course, we will not all interpret Scripture in lockstep with one another, but we need a common set of principles for scriptural interpretation. We cannot resolve complex debates without a clearer sense of the common ground on which we stand. Right now the most prominent issue is homosexuality, but in the future there will be other pressing issues. Will we be prepared to talk about them? Right now, we most certainly are not.
Thursday, November 14, 2013
This is not about sex
Let’s get this out of the way: good people within the United
Methodist Church, with all the best intentions, disagree on matters of human
sexuality. There’s no way around this. Whether or not the General Conference petition by Mike
Slaughter and Adam Hamilton would have made for effective legislation, the fact
of the matter is that their proposed legislation reflected a truth that inheres
within United Methodism: we disagree with one another about homosexuality.
In fact, we disagree about many things. That is why we have
a set of regulations that effectively functions as church law. These
regulations are contained in the Book of
Discipline.
For years, many United Methodists have defied the Book of Discipline on matters of
doctrine. Denial of doctrines such as the Trinity, Incarnation, and
Resurrection are violations of our doctrinal standards, which are protected in
the first Restrictive Rule. We have been able to deal with this matter, though,
because of the gray area created by the section of the Discipine called “Our Theological Task.” In other words, for all
its faults, the so-called Wesleyan Quadrilateral has created enough ambiguity
to allow us to avoid church trials over matters of deviation from the Articles
of Religion and Confession of Faith.
Ethical matters such as homosexuality, however, while
certainly related to theology and doctrine, fall into a different category.
These are specifically matters of behavior and practice, and, at times, the
General Conference has seen fit, rightly or wrongly, to issue clear regulations
on ethical matters.
This is where church law comes into play. Church law emerges
specifically because of our disagreement. When there is deep disagreement and
debate over important matters, the church may see fit to regulate itself
internally. The resulting regulations will necessarily make some people
unhappy. Yet without such internal regulations, the UMC cannot function as a
denomination. We have regulations regarding our internal hierarchy, our
appointment system, the ministry of the ordained, and many other such matters.
Granted, the level of adherence to these regulations has at times varied, but I
don’t recall a time when there has been such widespread open defiance of the Discipline as is the case now in relation
to issues of human sexuality.
We can say that we are held together in our love for Christ
and the unity of the Holy Spirit, and indeed we are. We are held together as
Christians in this way. Denominations, however, are held together by their
internal self-regulation. If we disregard our church law, we are no longer a
denomination.
The ministers of the church who are openly defying the
teaching in the Book of Discipline are
engaging in de facto schism. The question is not, at this point, whether the church
will divide. It has divided because
of the open defiance of the Discipline.
It has not divided de jure yet, but continued de facto division will result in
a de jure division. Perhaps this is the goal of such behavior. My own opinion
is that dividing the church in this way would be a huge mistake, but it
wouldn’t be the first huge mistake in the history of either the UMC or the
Church universal.
With all due respect to Dr. Thomas Frank, who is widely
recognized as one of the foremost experts in UM polity, referring this issue
back to conferences for discussion among ordained clergy seems to repeat a
process that has not worked. Annual conferences have discussed this issue to
the point of neglecting other business of the conferences. The General Conference
has repeatedly taken up this issue. No doubt, we will continue to have
discussions along these lines, though the extent to which they will be
productive is questionable. Our discussions of human sexuality have been more
rhetorical than reasonable, more political than persuasive. Real discussion of
these matters cannot take place in settings in which caucus groups control the
conversations.
Dissolving our denomination will have tragic
consequences. There are huge problems facing the world today, and not all of
them relate to human sexuality. My own primary concerns relate to ministry with
people with disabilities. I want the church to pay attention to this matter, to
take it seriously, to make more of a tangible difference in the lives of people
who live with disabling conditions. And yet there are more problems: a child
dies from the effects of extreme poverty every three seconds. Half the world
lives without clean drinking water. Christians in many parts of the world
continue to be martyred for the faith. The list could go on. As long as we are
consumed to the extent we are by a single issue—the issue of human sexuality—we
divert proportionate time and resources from the myriad other issues facing the
church today.
Church law matters because it allows us to go about our work together. It is not always right, but it is a necessary way of organizing our corporate life. Apart from this realization, the UMC cannot exist.
Church law matters because it allows us to go about our work together. It is not always right, but it is a necessary way of organizing our corporate life. Apart from this realization, the UMC cannot exist.
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Very good post on new atheist "churches"
United student Joseph Graves makes some very interesting points about the new atheist "churches." I commend this blog post to your reading. The most salient point he makes has to do with the degrees of difference between many "mainline" churches and these atheist gatherings. To what extent is God the center of our ecclesial life?
http://josephdavidgraves.com/post/66778305173/church-without-god-lessons-from-atheists
http://josephdavidgraves.com/post/66778305173/church-without-god-lessons-from-atheists
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)