Some helpful work has been done recently in attempting to
categorize the various constituencies within the United Methodist Church as we
inch closer to a report from The Way Forward commission and a special 2019
General Conference. Categories can be helpful handles for us to grasp as long
as 1) we don't grasp so tightly that we can't unclench our fists when we find
someone in a different category and 2) the categories fit with
our lived reality. As Gordon Livingston (no relation) said,
“If the map doesn't agree with the ground, the map is wrong”
Tom Lambrecht first developed the map that is now becoming
well known. It was enhanced by Tom Berlin. Chris Ritter took it another step. In each design, the map categorizes United Methodists into four
groups based on their position on LGBTQ inclusion and willingness to share a
denomination with those who disagree. The groups are labeled Progressive Non-Compatibilist, Progressive Compatibilist, Traditional
Compatibilist, and Traditional Non-Compatibilist. There is value to this map. It
highlights well the immediate situation that we face. But it doesn’t reflect
the broader ground around us. Once we get over the current hill in front of us the map becomes
worthless. So I want to try changing the map. I want to try a map that speaks
both to the ground we are walking on now and to the ground that we will
inevitably walk on in the future.
If you are a reader of this blog you undoubtedly know that I
have grave concerns about the Wesleyan Covenant Association (WCA.) It is
ironic, then, that I'd like to change the map because of the words of Jeff
Greenway, chair of the WCA, at a gathering in Memphis a few weeks ago. As
reported by Good News Magazine, Greenway said,
"... I believe human
sexuality is the presenting symptom of much deeper theological fissures and
systemic problems that are dividing The United Methodist Church. The foundation
for our theological crisis has been in place since the very beginning when we
embraced Theological Pluralism --resulting in a sort of ‘big tent’ Methodism
where a variety of theological expressions were appreciated and valued. There
was a sense of mutual appreciation and tolerance at that time. I can remember
talking with some of my older, more liberal colleagues who would not agree with
my more orthodox perspectives, but they would say there was room in their
church for me. It was a generous pluralism whose limits had not yet been truly
tested. Those limits are now being tested...."
He's right.
The reality is we are divided on a great number of issues,
not just human sexuality. This is the presenting
issue for a deeper crisis. Which means that coming to a final
resolution on human sexuality would not solve the deeper issues. One who is a Progressive Non-Compatibilist on LGBTQ rights may be a Traditional Compatibilist on rebaptism, for
example. Thus, using Greenway's language as a springboard, I propose three different categories.
The
New Categories
Progressive Exclusionary - this group consists of those who
take a consistently progressive view. But to belong to this group one must not
only have a progressive theology, but also insist that this progressive
theology is unquestionably the future of the church. Individuals in this group
might say something like "We know through science that miracles can't occur
and never did occur and it's embarrassing to be associated with people who
still hold on to old superstitions like that." This group is sometimes
labeled as "tolerant of everyone except those who aren't tolerant,"
which can also become "tolerant of everyone except those who don't think
like them." In Greenway's quote above, this group is represented by the
phrase "Those limits [of pluralism] are now being tested."
Traditional Exclusionary - on the opposite end are the
traditional exclusivists. This group consists of those who take a consistently
traditional stance AND insist that the denomination must always do so as well.
They will fight for the faith that was handed down to us. They conserve. When
they say "The Bible is True" they mean "The Bible is True in the
way that I understand Biblical truth as it was handed down to me. Period."
This group is sometimes labeled (unfairly) as haters of anyone who is not like
them. But they are naturally suspicious of theological innovation. I
cannot speak for where Rev. Greenway comes down, but the quote we began with sounds
like what one would expect from the Traditional Exclusionary group.
Wesleyan Inclusivists – This is the final group. They are
inclusive in their thinking. In Greeway's words, they are in favor of "big
tent Methodism." Theological Pluralism is a good thing, in part because I
may be wrong and you may be right and the only way we'll find out in this
lifetime is if we stay in relationship. But this group is not entirely inclusive.
The Wesleyan Inclusivist holds in Wesley's sermon on a "Catholic
Spirit" high regard. Wesley clearly communicates in this sermon the
inclusive principle that people of different opinions can coexist in the same
church. “Every wise man...bears with those who differ from him, and only asks
him with whom he desires to unite in love that single question. 'Is thine heart
right, as my heart is with thy heart?’” But there is more. In the same sermon
Wesley also speaks against latitudinarianism, which today we could translate as
an "anything goes" approach. A latitudinarian would end the story of
the woman caught in adultery with "Is there anyone here to condemn
you?" and skip the "Go and sin no more" part. Wesleyan Inclusivists,
then, would hold to a core of the faith that the Progressive Exclusionary group
would not hold to and simultaneously hold to a smaller core of essentials than
the Traditional Exclusionary group. In the words of Albert Outler, "Here,
then, is a charter for a distinctive sort of doctrinal pluralism - one that
stands at an equal distance from dogmatism on the one extreme and indifferetism
on the other." (from his introduction to “Catholic Spirit” in The
Works of John Wesley.)
Making
the Map
So now we can start making the map.
We need a new map because the Lambrecht/Berlin/Ritter map
categorizes us primarily in relation to one topic, albeit a very important
topic. The bigger question is the one Greenway named. "The foundation
for our theological crisis has been in place since the very beginning when we
embraced Theological Pluralism --resulting in a sort of ‘big tent’ Methodism
where a variety of theological expressions were appreciated and
valued."
If you agree with Greenway that this is a problem and the solution is some form of denominational purification (aka enforcing the Book of Discipline) then you are in the Traditional Exclusionary camp.
If you agree with Greenway that this is a problem and the solution is some form of denominational purification (aka enforcing the Book of Discipline) then you are in the Traditional Exclusionary camp.
If you agree with Greenway that the "big
tent" is a problem but you think the solution is to enforce a deep
pluralism and those who cannot accept the pluralism will need to exit then you
are in the Progressive Exclusionary camp.
Progressive
Exclusionaries cannot agree with Traditional Exclusionaries. Again, Greenway is
right. The limits of a generous pluralism are being tested. And we are failing
the test. We are failing because, like the current culture of the United
States, we are moving ever more rapidly to the poles - to the extremes. One
extreme has forgotten how to be generous; the other has forgotten how to be
pluralistic. And so we stand in opposition.
In the middle of the map
sits the Wesleyan Inclusivists. This is my
preference and where I would place myself, so I’ll take a short tangent. As a
Wesleyan Inclusivist I led the church I serve through the process of becoming a
Reconciling Congregation. At the same time, anyone who has been a member of the
congregation through the previous four senior pastors will tell you I am the
most theologically conservative pastor this church has ever had. When I arrived
we lost some members because I was too conservative. More recently we lost members
because of our pro-refugee stance. Now I’m too liberal. Some will say we talk
about sin too much and some will say you can only be comfortable here if you're
a Democrat. And those statements will surprise the many Republicans in the
congregation and those who thank God daily for saving them from sin. We've also baptized four adults in the last month who are finding a fresh, authentic faith.
In other words, the
Wesleyan Inclusivist lives in the tension of the real world. Some say we will
not be able to move forward as a church until we have a final resolution to the
issues before us. I remind you that the first church fight is recorded in Acts
6, not long after Pentecost, "while the number of disciples
continued to increase" (Acts 6:1, CEB). We live in tension not
because of our current dispute, but because we are human. The church has
always and always will exist in this tension.
The Wesleyan Inclusivist will embrace from the Progressive Exclusivist a spirit of Christian pluralism. The tent should be big because Wesley’s tent was big and Jesus’ tent was big. But there are pieces that the Wesleyan cannot take from the Progressive. For example, we must be able to say that Jesus is the Way. A universalism that says all religions are ultimately the same diminishes our own faith while also doing a disservice to other faiths (see Stephen Prothero's God Is Not One for a good survey.) We cannot succumb to a pluralism whose only boundary is excluding those who believe in boundaries.
The Wesleyan Inclusivist will also embrace pieces of the Traditional Exclusivist. In short, we would hold onto the Articles of Religion and Confession of Faith in the Book of Discipline. And, to quote another WCA presenter, we would hold onto those statements "without crossing our fingers behind our backs." But the Traditionalist will have to let go of some things, too. The Traditionalist will have to note that our statements on Scripture include the phrase "Whatever is not revealed in or established by the Holy Scriptures is not to be made an article of faith..." (Confession of Faith, Article IV.) This means that there are some things you might want us to hold as essential that...aren't. And we may have some legitimate disagreements about what precisely is revealed in Scripture.
Now to finish the map. In themselves, the Progressive and the Traditionalist cannot be reconciled. But the Wesleyan invites both into relationship, taking pieces that can be embraced by all in order to bridge the gap. Because the Methodist tent is big. It is not all-encompassing, but it is big. And that’s a good thing.
The Wesleyan Inclusivist will embrace from the Progressive Exclusivist a spirit of Christian pluralism. The tent should be big because Wesley’s tent was big and Jesus’ tent was big. But there are pieces that the Wesleyan cannot take from the Progressive. For example, we must be able to say that Jesus is the Way. A universalism that says all religions are ultimately the same diminishes our own faith while also doing a disservice to other faiths (see Stephen Prothero's God Is Not One for a good survey.) We cannot succumb to a pluralism whose only boundary is excluding those who believe in boundaries.
The Wesleyan Inclusivist will also embrace pieces of the Traditional Exclusivist. In short, we would hold onto the Articles of Religion and Confession of Faith in the Book of Discipline. And, to quote another WCA presenter, we would hold onto those statements "without crossing our fingers behind our backs." But the Traditionalist will have to let go of some things, too. The Traditionalist will have to note that our statements on Scripture include the phrase "Whatever is not revealed in or established by the Holy Scriptures is not to be made an article of faith..." (Confession of Faith, Article IV.) This means that there are some things you might want us to hold as essential that...aren't. And we may have some legitimate disagreements about what precisely is revealed in Scripture.
Now to finish the map. In themselves, the Progressive and the Traditionalist cannot be reconciled. But the Wesleyan invites both into relationship, taking pieces that can be embraced by all in order to bridge the gap. Because the Methodist tent is big. It is not all-encompassing, but it is big. And that’s a good thing.
We need to be realistic. There will be
those who are not able to stay united in this denomination. The person I
interviewed years ago who held to the idea that God dictated Scripture word by
word doesn’t belong in the same denomination as the person who believes the
Bible is a human construct with divine inspiration.
Rob Renfroe said in the March/April issue of Good News that, “A win for the Kingdom is coming out of the present mess with as many faithful Methodists as possible connected to each other and working together for the Kingdom (p.3).” We will not stay entirely united. But if we can see beyond the presenting issue to the deeper issues, we can stay mostly united. We can work together towards common goals and allow differences in matters of opinion.
