Why I'll #BeUMC Part 6 - The Quadrilateral

 I'm going to do a series of posts later on what I've discovered by reading through the breakaway group's Transitional Doctrine and Discipline. There are, I think, several items that you may have missed. One that did not surprise me - there is no mention of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. Why? Bad bathwater. It's been misused and misunderstood from time to time. But it's a beautiful baby that needs to be preserved. Throw out the bathwater, but keep the baby.

Reason #6 I'll still #BeUMC - The Wesleyan Quadrilateral remains an important way to understand and ultimately to put our faith in action.

Many traditionalists have argued that our fracture today is not really about human sexuality, but about the authority of Scripture. This is not the case. Yes, there are a handful of United Methodists on the far left that will deny the authority of Scripture, just as there are a handful on the far right who have made the Bible a god. Traditionalist leadership continues to exploit this small minority to make it sound like, as Rob Renfroe said recently, "People who have any kind of orthodox faith will not be able to remain in the post-separation UMC." 

The Quadrilateral Is not a Square

In short, the Quadrilateral is the concept that Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience (or Christian Experience) are all factors in how we make our faith decisions. You might see this graphically as a square. Some people will then say that, as in a square, all sides are equal and each of these four factors should be equally considered. But quadrilaterals aren't always squares. 

The Quadrilateral is best understood with Scripture as the base, interpreted through the lenses of reason, tradition, and experience. So, for example, we would never say, "The Bible says women shouldn't preach but tradition, reason, and experience outvote it three-to-one." Instead, we might say, "The Bible says women shouldn't preach. Experience and tradition suggest we should take a closer look than just the surface. Reason helps us see what the context was in that moment and, when looking at other passages, we come to a new interpretation of scripture that allows us to discern God wants women to preach."

Scripture is primary. It is authoritative. And we also use God-given resources to understand what Scripture says. This should not be controversial. In fact, at a join conference for churches over 400 in average attendance and pastors under age 40, when asked, "What do I value most about the UMC?" the third most common response was, "Theology shaped by Scripture interpreted with the aid of tradition, experience, and reason." It rated even above, "A wide welcome for all people." But, on the altar of doctrinal purity, the breakaway group has entirely removed the Quadrilateral. Instead of removing this helpful metaphor from use, we should reaffirm it and help people use it appropriately.

I want to be part of a church that lets people think. I don't want to be part of a church that frowns on, if not outright bans, people from using God's gifts of reason, tradition, and experience.

P.S. At that same conference mentioned above, a conference intentionally geared towards those who plan to remain or are open to remaining in the UMC, 94% of those present identified as "compatibilist," meaning that they are willing to be in a denomination with people who disagree about human sexuality. No pastor will be forced to marry people they don't want to marry. That's part of the definition of "compatible."

Why I'll Still #BeUMC Part 5 - Scripture

 The Wesleyan Covenant Association, which is the backbone for the group leaving the UMC next year, formed five years ago. Remember this is the group that allegedly is much more serious about Scripture than progressives and centrists. The group formed with a big splash - website, articles, speeches, and a fatally flawed statement on...scripture.

Here was the original statement:

“The Bible itself is the sole and final source of all that we believe. It is the inspired and infallible Word of God that speaks with final authority concerning truth, morality, and the proper conduct of humanity.” 

It was scrubbed from the website in a matter of days and replaced with a different, much better statement. You can read my take on the change here. Neither the original or revised statement appears in the current draft of their new Discipline, but I maintain that the first version is the truest version - the Freudian Slip of the WCA that tells us what they believe. And it's not Methodist.

Reason #3 to #BeUMC - a Methodist understanding of Scripture

The original statement is fundamentalism. It is not what we have historically believed. It does, though, give an important clue to what the group leaving us actually believes. 

David Watson, who is heavily involved with the WCA and others, has a great article on what we actually believe that I encourage you to read. In a nutshell, our current statements on Scripture are sufficient. I absolutely love the former EUB statement: 

We believe the Holy Bible, Old and New Testaments, reveals the Word of God so far as it is necessary for our salvation. It is to be received through the Holy Spirit as the true rule and guide for faith and practice. Whatever is not revealed in or established by the Holy Scriptures is not to be made an article of faith nor is it to be taught as essential to salvation.

Among the key differences, our current statement

- Limits Scripture to what its actual purpose is - revelation of God for our salvation, not for example, for science or history
- Identifies Jesus as the Word of God, so that we don't commit bibliolatry. 
- Notes the role of the Holy Spirit in understanding
- Allow for differences in theology 

If the issue at hand is that progressives and centrists don't believe in Scripture appropriately, why not simply say, "We believe and will practice what Methodists have traditionally believed and practiced regarding Scripture, as contained in our Articles of Religion and Confession of Faith."? 

Only time will tell how the breakaway group ultimately treats Scripture. In the meantime, I'm grateful to be in a denomination that has a nuanced, faithful, and historically Methodist view of Scripture.

Why I'll Still #BeUMC #4 - The Big Tent Still Matters

 We all know why we are here. 

We have argued about abortion, government provided health care, the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, the trust clause, the mission and purpose of the Church, environmentalism, I could literally go on all day. Every social issue and nearly every theological issue have been raised at General Conference and certainly in congregations around the world. And yet, organizationally, the story of the Methodist movement over the last 50+ years has been about uniting denominations, not dividing. 

Traditionalists will say this division is about the authority of scripture. They are wrong at best and lying at worst. We have disagreed about the interpretation of scripture for decades, too. None of these issues or conversations have caused a split. The split is simply because of one thing: LGBT+ people want to be fully accepted.* Maybe that's enough of a reason for the split, but we should at least be honest about it. 

Having said that, the group that is now leaving the denomination will differ from the UMC in a lot of ways besides just their exclusion. As evidence, you need go no further than ❡101 of the current draft of their Book of Doctrines and Discipline with the use of the word canon. There is a parenthetical - "the Greek word kanon means rule." It is true. It is also entirely unnecessary for the points being made in this section of the document. But the inclusion of this ancient definition is important - this group is focused on rules. It's not that rules are unimportant. Rules matter. One can think of the old metaphor of a tent - every tent has stakes that hold down the edges of the tent. If you go outside of the edges of the tent then you are no longer in the tent. 

Reason #4 I'll still #BeUMC - the Big Tent still matters.

I don't love the language, but the metaphor still works. The new denomination's tentative Discipline is heavy on just that - discipline. Everyone is welcome, as long as you think like us. That's not a denomination I want to be part of.

The church I serve now is a beautiful shade of purple. We can disagree on any number of topics and still worship together on Sundays. When I was on the Board of Ordained Ministry, I regularly voted for commissioning or ordination of candidates who were more conservative and more liberal than me theologically. Their theology was different than mine, but it was still Methodist. We do not all need to think alike. In fact, we are healthier when we have a degree of diversity. 

The Tent is not all-encompassing. There will be limits - again, on both sides of the theological spectrum. The tent may end up a little bigger or a litter smaller than I would personally prefer. But, at the end of the day, I don't want to be part of an intentionally Small Tent denomination that is defined by who they choose to exclude. I would much rather be part of a Big Tent defined by who we include. I don't want to be in a church defined by "Rule." I want to be part of a church defined primarily by Grace.

*I haven't finished reading the full text of the transitional Book of Doctrines and Disciplines. My favorite part so far is the paragraph on inclusiveness. First, note that we aren't splitting because inclusiveness is a priority either. They use the word! And they use it broadly! It's a good paragraph - except they don't mean really mean it. "Therefore, inclusiveness denies every semblance of discrimination on the basis of...[large list], or gender (defined throughout...by a person's immutable biological traits identified by or before birth.)" Literally, we won't discriminate against you unless you are LGBT+. Similarly, "Inclusiveness means the freedom for the total involvement of all persons who meet the requirements of our Book of Doctrines and Discipline in the membership and leadership of the Church at any level and in every place." Taken literally, this means people who are LGBT+ are not only banned from ordination, but from membership and leadership. That's an interesting definition of inclusion.

Why I'll Still #BeUMC part 3 - Spirit vs. Letter

I remember when I first read the Protocol of Reconciliation and Grace through Separation. The principles articulated were spot on. Progressives, Centrists, and Traditionalists would all receive something less than they hoped for but more than they feared. That makes for a good compromise. It felt like leaders were actually able to make progress despite our lack of trust and our theological differences. 

Then the legislation came. Then the disconnect.

Regionalization, such as the Christmas Covenant, is an integral part of the Protocol principles. You can still read it at the link above. Because of technicalities, that was not put into the legislation that was proposed. I still support the Protocol, including its legislation, as the least bad choice we have. But conversations over the last several months have reminded me again and again of one reason I could never join the new denomination and must stay United Methodist

Reason #3 - The Spirit of the law is more important than the Letter of the law.

Protocol

Without getting into the weeds, the Protocol alone does very little for centrists like me and for progressives. It suggests an abeyance on charges (which is significant but which some bishops are choosing to ignore). Long term, what really matters to us is regionalization like the Christmas Covenant. The principles of the Protocol assume this will happen but the legislation omits this. There is an easy solution. In the spirit of the Protocol principles, either 1) debate and pass both the Protocol and Covenant at the same time or 2) Pass the Protocol first with the understanding that traditionalist delegates would either leave the general conference floor or abstain from voting if they cannot in good conscience support the Covenant. With a spirit of cooperation and helping each group do what they need to do we could get that done.

I can't recall hearing a single traditionalist endorse what I just described. Instead, over the last year I've heard only excuses for why this isn't workable. The letter of the law is that a delegate should stay and vote as they were elected to do. The spirit of the law is that a delegate would allow an alternate, who also was elected, to vote instead so that we can all move forward. 

I can honestly say that in all the conversations that I've had with progressive and centrist leadership since 2019 there has been no talk of how we can "get" or "take advantage" of traditionalists. There are many who, if general conference happens, would like the Covenant to be passed  before the Protocol because traditionalists have not demonstrated good faith in allowing the Covenant to pass. None of those people have said they would support the Covenant and then actively try to prevent the Protocol passing for the traditionalists. In other words, progressive and centrist leadership is still trying to abide by the Spirit of the law.

Scripture

I would argue that this is one of our fundamental differences in interpretation of Scripture. This is why a traditionalist might quote Romans 1:26-27 to point out homosexuality as a sin without continuing on to Romans 2:1, "Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself..." The letter of the law in Romans 1 names more than 30 ways in which people sin, including what is sometimes translated as homosexuality. But the spirit, the whole point of the passage, comes in Romans 2 that we are not to condemn.

In Galatians 3:28, Paul says, "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." The letter of the law limits our equality to those three factors; nationality/ethnicity, status as free or slave, and gender. The letter of the law allows division on any other basis. The Spirit of the law recognizes that the point of the passage is to tear down the divisions that Paul's readers have experienced or even perpetuated. Paul was not writing down an exhaustive list of divisions, he was demonstrating a principle.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished." He then promptly contradicts the letter of the law with his, "You've heard it said...but I say to you..." sayings. How can he do this? Because Jesus also taught that the law is ultimately fulfilled in the Great Commandment to love God fully and to love our neighbor as ourselves. That's the spirit of the law. Love. 

I want to be part of a church that strives to follow the Spirit of the law, whether we're talking about church politics or Holy Scripture.