Buyer Beware: The GMC Book of Doctrines and Discipline, Pt. 6: Theology and Sacraments

 You will undoubtedly recall that many proponents of the new Global Methodist Church (GMC) claim our division is not about human sexuality but is actually about theology and the authority of Scripture. While I still believe that's overstated - our theology is not changing right now, only our stance on LGBT+ inclusion - it is true there are some differences. The key ones that I see which may surprise you are noted in this post.

Theology and Sacraments

1. Goodbye Quad: The so-called Wesleyan Quadrilateral has been relentlessly attacked by traditionalists over the years. They will sometimes quote Albert Outler wishing he had never coined the term. That's not quite correct. Outler said he "more than once" regretted the term. There is a legitimate concern with how how the Quadrilateral is sometimes taught and used. I appreciate Phillip Brooks analysis and approach from several years ago. In short, Scripture is our primary source of authority while reason, tradition, and Christian experience inform how we read and interpret Scripture. Our teaching of how the Quadrilateral functions should be addressed. Perhaps, as Brooks suggests, it should be renamed. The GMC simply does away with it altogether. 

2. Faith and Science: This actually isn't a difference in theology. That's the surprise. Paragraph 202 is the GMC's equivalent to our Social Principles (more on this next time). Point 4 reads, "...we encourage dialogue between faith and science as mutual witnesses to God's creative power." I suspect this is here because of potentially controversial issues like evolution. What's noteworthy is that the sentence exists at all. This is the kind of thing that allegedly sets progressives apart from traditionalists. In fact, scientific advancement is one form of "Reason" that, as noted above, has been excised from the Book of Doctrines and Discipline (BDD). 

3. Infant Baptism: in our current Book of Discipline, paragraph 226 says pastors "shall earnestly exhort all Christian parents or guardians to present their children" for baptism. A parent can opt not to have their child baptized, but they should be encouraged to do so. This is a problem for traditionalists. The large majority of traditionalist pastors in the UMC have no quarrel with infant baptism and, in fact, encourage it. But not all. One United Methodist Church (which I'm not naming here but I have a screenshot of their webpage says right on the internet, "At [name redacted], we baptize children when they are old enough to express their own decision to follow Jesus and understand the meaning of baptism." They aren't even pretending. But because, I assume, the GMC wants churches like this there is no calls for clergy trials for self-avowed, practicing non-infant baptizers. That problem is solved for the GMC because the BDD eliminates the "shall". In fact, baptism of infants and children is endorsed nowhere in the BDD except in the doctrinal standards. To make matters worse, an earlier draft of the BDD did expressly adopt infant baptism ("we believe that God has expressly given to children a place within his kingdom..." but that paragraph was deleted from the current draft. To be clear, children can be baptized in this denomination. It is vastly reduced in importance.

4. Grace is OK: This one fascinates me. Portions of the BDD are taken nearly verbatim from the BOD. Which is fine - if there's no issue with the language just keep it. The baptismal vows should be a great example. I know there is some concern with how baptism is sometimes practice (for example, a pastor baptizing in the name of "Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer"), but that is a violation of the language. The language itself if very traditional and orthodox. Yet it is changed. The new language renounces "the devil" instead of "spiritual forces of wickedness". OK, fine. Here's the shocker for me. "Will you obediently keep God's holy will and commandments, and walk in them all the days of your life by the grace and power of God?" This seems to replace the current question, "Do you confess Jesus Christ as your Savior, put your whole trust in his grace, and promise to serve him as Lord..." Note, first, the reversal of law and grace. This is a consistent theme throughout the BDD. It is a law book, within which grace makes some appearances. Note, second, that we no longer "put [our] whole trust in his grace". We promise now to keep God's will "by the grace and power of God." Grammatically, it's a small change. Theologically, I think it's significant.

5. Communion: This is nitpicking, but it definitely surprised me. Though often ignored, our current theology teaches that we should receive Communion weekly, or as often as possible. There is no mention of the frequency of Communion in the BDD

6. Communion, Pt 2: Another fascinating point. An earlier draft of the BDD included the statement, "Respecting our concern for those with health issues, congregations may provide gluten-free bread." That has been deleted from the current version. If I was on the writing team, I don't think I would have thought to include express approval of gluten-free communion. You may know that the Catholic church has forbidden it, so a statement affirming the use may be of some value. I wonder how the decision was made, after it was initially included, to now reject it.

That's it. There are some other changes, but truly nothing that struck me as unexpected. In fact, if all of the theological changes were proposed at General Conference as changes to the current Book of Discipline I'd probably vote for nearly all of them (other than those mentioned here). There's not much radical stuff - which is why we shouldn't need to have this conversation about breaking up.

Next time: Earlier I shared four important notes on inclusiveness. Next we'll look at six concerns about social issues, including a flashback to baptism that I just picked up on while reviewing my notes for this post.