Death of the UMC: Ten Words of Caution to New Methodist Denominations
Note:
I have been working on this blog post for some time now. I have mixed emotions about publishing it. I believe these Ten Words of Caution have merit and are Biblical sound. However, I have lost the zeal to spend a great deal of time perfecting and editing them.
I offer them as a "for what it's worth" post. I trust the Holy Spirit will put this before the eyes of those He intends to read it and speak to their hearts, anything that says that He wants to say to the powers that be.
Introduction
Some churches and denominations are hoping to form something new as a result of the United Methodist Church schism. Groups like the Wesleyan Covenant Association have already drafted their Book of Doctrines and Discipline. As I read through their Book, I think they are sowing the same seeds that destroyed the United Methodist Church. Perhaps these Ten Words of Caution can help prevent them from perpetuating the mistakes of the UMC.
Maybe they are too close to Methodism that they can't see that they may be perpetuating some fundamental mistakes from the get-go. They are so focused on the battles over same-sex matters that they can’t see there are other more serious flaws in the UMC. I think they have been fighting the symptoms of a more profound failure of the UMC.
It is my sincere hope that this blog post will find its way to those in the Wesleyan Covenant Association and other potential denominations or local churches who are starting afresh. While I have extensive experience in United Methodism, I have been away from the denomination long enough to see some things that I believe those who have been there too long can no longer see.
In the Spirit of love, I offer these Ten Words of Caution to New Methodist Denominations
1. Beware of the sin of Incorporation.
I might as well start with what will probably be the biggest stumbling block. I wrote about the theology behind the sin of Incorporation of Churches here. I continue to have difficulty understanding why Christians, especially pastors, so easily dismiss this theological warning. This is an area of blindness that prevails in 95% of American Churches.
However, I am compelled to speak this the truth in love. (Ephesians 4:15) Any new church or denomination that joins the local expression of Bride of Christ to the State through Incorporation is in sin. It's that simple.
The IRS recognizes that there are churches that remain churches in the tax code. You can check out the IRS criteria to determine if an organization is a church or not from its website. Yes, it is easier to be incorporated. You will enjoy some benefits that unincorporated churches do not enjoy, but that is no reason to join the Bride to the State.
Any new church or denomination will perpetuate the primary sin of the UMC if and when they incorporate. This leads me to the next Word of Caution.
2. Beware of the business model of doing Church
I remember well my time in the UMC. I attended Annual Conferences, District Meetings, Special Meetings with the Bishop, ad nausea. If you didn't know it was a ministerial meeting, you could quickly think it was a corporate executive or a regional sales meeting. Along with most churches in the United States, the UMC has adopted a business model for running a church.
What does this look like? It becomes an organization that provides products and services for consumers. While it may use the jargon of Christianity, in the end, it's about the numbers. Be it attendance or the offering; most churches run like businesses. Don't get me wrong; churches need to be administrated. But in the Bible, the administration appears to be a small part of the Church's life, not it's raison d'être.
Both 1 Corinthians 12:28 and Romans 12:8 mention "administration" as one of the gifts of the Spirit. However, this does not mean that the Church exists as an administrative enterprise. How new denominations and churches can avoid falling into the business mentality trap goes beyond this blog post's scope. It can be done. However, awareness of this tendency is the first step in reevaluating how things are done and finding Biblical ways of understanding a local church's nature and function.
3. Beware of Quadrilateral Confusion.
I refer my reader to the article I wrote on this called Quadriladral Confusion. It appears proposed denominations such as the Wesleyan Covenant Association are poised to make the same mistake as the UMC. Twice the proposed Book of Doctrine and Discipline speaks of Scripture as being "primary":
¶ 103. HOLY SCRIPTURE
The canonical books of the Old and New Testaments (as specified in the Articles of Religion) are the primary rule and authority for faith, morals, and service, against which all other authorities must be measured.
202 SECTION ONE—FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLES
Article II. Doctrinal Foundation—The doctrines of the Church shall be those embraced within the historic creeds of the Church, our Articles of Religion and Confession of Faith, and the core Wesleyan tradition as defined within the Doctrines and Discipline, with the Holy Scriptures understood to be our primary rule for faith and practice.
The Wesleyan Covenant Association doesn't mention the word "Quadrilateral." They do, however, use the Quadrilateral word "primary" when referring to the Bible.
The Bible is not only "primary," it is the only authoritative standard by which any Church evaluates tradition, reason, and experience.
The Bible is the only self-attesting Book that claims to be the self-revelation of the one and only self-existing Trinitarian God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Bible claims to be completely reliable (2 Peter 1:9), infallible (2 Timothy 3:16+17), and truth. (John 17:17).
It must be assumed that the Bible is inerrant in its original autograph and that any copying discrepancies are so infrequent and insignificant that there has been no change of meaning throughout the ages. The Bible that we hold in our hands is 100% reliable. To presuppose anything less opens the door to doubt, questions, and ultimately relativism. If there are significant mistakes in the Bible, then we cannot be sure of anything. This is contrary to the Bible's witness of itself. It not only claims to be the word of God, but it also claims to be the words of God.
To deny the truth of the Bible undermines theology, metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. If the Bible is not true, you cannot prove anything. Saying the Bible is "primary" will not stand the test of time. Mark my words, if new denominations and churches maintain the doctrine of Scripture's primacy, they will be fighting the same battles they fought in the UMC. It will only be a matter of time.
It’s time to go back to the Reformation’s call of Sola Scriptura!
4. Beware of using any lens to interpret Scripture.
One of my biggest concerns with new denominations is found in the following paragraph:
103. PRINCIPLES OF OUR LIFE TOGETHER
Wesley said, "there is no holiness but social." By referring to "social holiness," Wesley meant that the road to holiness was one that we could not travel by ourselves, but rather involved the community of faith at every step along the way. Our longing and hope is that our Church may:
1. Remain rooted and grounded in the scriptures and in the historic teachings of the Christian Church as defined in our Articles of Religion and Confession of Faith, and understood through the Wesleyan lens of faith. (bold and italic emphases mine)
This paragraph shows how these men and women are too close to see their potential error. The Articles of Religion and the Confession of Faith must be rooted and grounded in Scripture alone and not the other way around. There are many great Articles of Religion and Confessions of Faith, but they must be subservient to the Bible's authority.
It is suicide to start with "the Wesleyan lens of faith." There is only one lens, and that is the Bible itself. They must submit Wesleyan theology to the authority of Scripture, not Scripture to Wesleyan theology. They must be brave to reject any Wesleyan teaching that is not exegetically found through a systematic study of Scripture.
If this denomination's purpose is to propagate Wesleyan theology or interpret Scripture through that lens, what hope is there? Wesley is only right as his theology lines up with Scripture. This is true of Luther, Calvin, or any other significant theologian of the past.
This is an excellent opportunity for me to express something that has been troubling me. I've been out of the corporate Church for a while and was surprised to see organizations and people such as the Wesleyan Covenant Association and the Good News Magazine referred to as "traditionalists." What surprised me was that nobody seemed to object.
Is this what new denominations and churches are about, the Tradition of Wesleyanism? If someone used this term to describe me, I would find the term "traditionalist" highly offensive. I'd rather be called a Fundamentalist associate with Dr. J. Graham Machen and Dr. Cornelius Van Til than a Traditionalist.
I hope the new churches and denominations will prayerfully contemplate what the term "traditionalists" means and whether it is an accurate epitaph, containing the seeds of destruction. If it is accurate and you are comfortable with it, I pray God opens your eyes. Jesus Christ was not a traditionalist, and He repudiated tradition throughout His ministry. (see Matthew 15:1-20)
5. Don't Use Land Clauses.
I think the trust land clause of the UMC is evil. Any mechanism that prevents healthy separation is wrong. It is also wrong to use legal manipulations to steal or control a local church's building and property if they no longer want to be part of the denomination.
I have written about land trust clauses here. The Wesleyan's proposed Book is vague on whether it has a land clause or not. Perhaps those with legal expertise can discern if the following paragraphs are coded legalese with the same effect as the United Methodist land clause.
Article XV - The Christian and Property We believe God is the owner of all things and that the individual holding of property is lawful and is a sacred trust under God. Private property is to be used for the manifestation of Christian love and liberality, and to support the Church's mission in the world. All forms of property, whether private, corporate or public, are to be held in solemn trust and used responsibly for human good under the sovereignty of God.
¶ 417. ADMINISTRATION OF LOCAL CONGREGATIONS.
3. A board of trustees, which shall function as the legal guardians of all real property, as well as provide for the upkeep and maintenance of church facilities, and any engagement which the Church may have in legal or other such matters.
I encourage any new church or denomination to allow local churches to maintain ownership of their property. If you don't, you or your spiritual progeny will be fighting the same battles you are fighting. The only reason you are leaving the UMC now is that God has opened a window of opportunity that has not been available to you before. You are allowed to leave because those in power want you to go. Otherwise, you would still be in the grip of the UMC Empire. Don’t do to the local churches, what the UMC has done to you.
6. Beware of Theological Pluralism (Be Confessional)
Perhaps it is in the proposed Book of Doctrine and Discipline, but I did not find any reference to Confessionalism. I saw a reference to the Articles of Religion, Normative Wesleyan Standard Sermons, and so forth. I didn't see any reference that pastors and members must adhere to a particular Confession of Faith or suffer the consequences of dismissal or ex-communication. The most I found was in
¶ 103. PRINCIPLES OF OUR LIFE TOGETHER, Our longing and hope is that our church may:…
and then the Book lists a series of excellent desires.
Without a stable and unified Confession of Faith based upon a Biblical Exegetical Systematic Theology along with healthy Church Trials, Theological Pluralism will creep into the Church or denomination. While this Caution may seem contrary to Caution #4, "Beware of using any lens to interpret Scripture," I assure you, it isn't. A Confession is not a lens as much as it is a unifying statement of agreed-upon beliefs that allows members to recognize when someone is preaching heresy.
This leads me to Caution #7
7. Beware of avoiding Church Trials
It appears that the proposed Book of Discipline has a section in Part Nine called Judicial Administration. The Book seems to avoid the title "Church Trial," but it is at least a step in the right direction. I didn't see any mechanism that would cover church members' right to resolve any disputes they may have using Judicial Administration.
Paul expands Judicial Administration beyond just "administration" in 1 Corinthians 6:1-8:
When someone has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the Church? I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? But you yourselves wrong and defraud—even your own brothers!
What if members have disputes that they don't want to bring before a Civil or State court? What if they want the Church to adjudicate contracts, legal disputes, and so on? What would they do in that instance? Isn't the Bible calling us to create and utilize an Ecclesiastical Court System? I think it is based upon texts such as 1 Corinthians 6:1-8.
8. Beware of Roman Catholic and Anglican Clergy/Laity Distinctions
Let's face it; the term "clergy" is not in Scripture. The Bible has the role of deacon and elder/pastor/overseer/bishop. These "offices" do not have the same distinction as the traditional Clergy/Laity distinctions that we see modeled in the United Methodist Church. It goes beyond this blog post's scope to flesh out the Biblical difference between the Traditions of Catholocism, Anglicanism, and Methodism clergy and the Biblical office of deacon and elder/pastor/overseer/bishop.
If my memory serves me correctly, didn’t Wesley ordain Thomas Coke based on his belief that elder/pastor/overseer/bishop are different words for the same office and function in the Bible? If so, why would denominations based on his teaching make such distinctions?
The idea of "professional clergy" and "the unqualified laity" is not Biblical.
9. Beware of Church Hierarchies
As mentioned above, is there a distinction in the Bible between pastors, overseers, and bishops? What about the role of district superintendents? The Wesleyan Covenant's proposed Book reads very much like the United Methodist Methodist Book of Discipline when it comes to persons, offices, and committees' hierarchy.
It is a mistake to build into the polity of any new church or denomination a form of ecclesiastical classism. It goes against the Bible. Do the new proposed Books of Discipline perpetuate the hierarchies seen in the United Methodist Church? If so, perhaps this should be examined.
I will add to this point something that probably should stand on its own. The sole elder polity that most Methodist Churches adopt. It appears as if the Bible prescribes that each church should have a multiplicity of elders. God does this for many reasons, one of them being that one person should not have authority, nor does one person have the ability to carry out all the functions of pastoring a local church. I get that Methodism is not Presbyterian, but the concept of a plurality of elders could be built into the structure for the protection of both pastors and congregants.
10. Beware of Wesley's Pragmatism
Wesley did what worked. From land clauses to ordaining Thomas Coke, Wesley leaned toward a practical view of getting things done. He was, at times, restrained by his knowledge of the Bible, deep love of Jesus Christ, and pastoral care for people. At times, his innovations were brilliant and bore much fruit. However, he did sometimes do what worked over what was Biblical.
My Word of Caution here is, perhaps, more directed to his spiritual progeny. There are many things that will fill the churches. The "seeker-friendly" churches often do what works. Some churches remove all potentially offensive religious symbols from the sanctuary, put on showy Sunday morning performances that draw the people in, or suppress any offensive Biblical language that might turn off an unbeliever.
The nature of Methodism is to do what works. I encourage leaders of new denominations not to fall into the trap of pleasing the world to fill the pews. Jesus Christ Himself, at the height of His popularity, told the adoring crowds in John 6:53-56
So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
The non-utilitarian result of Jesus' word is found in verse 66
After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.
Not the best way to fill the pews!
I do hope these Ten Words of Caution have some value. I have no delusions that I have all knowledge or that everything I say as gospel. However, I encourage potential new denominations and/or local churches that split off to consider and pray about these Ten Words of Caution.