Editor’s note: One year ago, a group of "traditionalist" and "moderate" United Methodists gathered in Atlanta to address the liberal trend within their denomination. "We’re calling the church to renew itself through adherence to the standard teachings of Christianity and the basic doctrines of the United Methodist Church," said retired Bishop William R. Cannon, one of three conveners of the meeting.
The other conveners were the Rev. Maxie Dunnam, now president of Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky, and the Rev. Thomas C. Oden, professor of theology at Drew Theological School in Madison, New Jersey. The 102 participants included bishops, seminary professors, pastors, some members of the World Methodist Council, and prominent laity from all five U.S. jurisdictions of the UM Church.
"The United Methodist Church is at the crossroads. We face the peril of abandoning the Christian faith, thereby becoming unfaithful disciples of Jesus Christ, or we can embrace the promise of becoming God’s instrument in a new awakening of vital Christianity," announces the group’s statement.
"In order to enact the Discipline’s call to ‘doctrinal reinvigoration,’ and to avoid schism and prevent mass exodus, we intend to form a Confessing Movement within the United Methodist Church. By this we mean people and congregations who exalt the Lordship of Jesus Christ alone, and adhere to doctrinal standards of our church."
Dr. Harper, who participated and presented a paper at the gathering, has prepared the following article that contains his personal views on why he believes the UM Church needs such a movement.
Unusual times require unusual actions. I sincerely believe we are at such a point in the history of the United Methodist Church.
Theological variations threaten to tear the fabric of an already-precarious pluralism. Radical revisionists have openly declared their mission to substantially rewrite the faith, particularly regarding the person and work of Jesus. As one person recently put it, "If this is not a time to stand up and speak out, when would it be?" The fact is, there are a host of faithful and loyal United Methodists who believe we are at such a time. The recently-expressed "Confessing Movement" is a serious attempt to speak a responsible word to the United Methodist Church.
As a scholar, I know there are two sides to every issue. There are good and godly clergy and laity who are genuinely opposed to the Confessing Movement, fearing it will divide the church and be largely negative in its efforts. We must not ignore the fact that there are people who have sincere concerns like these, nor must we fail to learn from them when they have a word of edification.
The purpose of this article, however, is to support the Confessing Movement and provide some of the reasons that it has a place and deserves a hearing.
The Need for Normativeness
Almost everyone I know, regardless of theological position, agrees that the church cannot survive by "believing anything and everything." The current ferment in United Methodism is not about holding everything as equally true, but rather about what shall be considered truth for the church. The recognition that ours is a pluralistic church is neither a dismissal of the need for normativeness nor a license for open-ended speculation.
In this regard the recent report of the Council of Bishops about "Wisdom" upholds the need for normativeness in the church, and it points to the Book of Discipline’s doctrinal statement as the focal point for such normativeness. This report confirms the point I am trying to make, and is a source of hope among those of us who believe our doctrinal standards are the authoritative base for defining what it means to be "United Methodist" and for creating the covenantal community of people willing to associate in relation to those standards. The bishops have exercised their teaching office in the action they have taken and have served us well in the appeal for normativeness.
In light of their action, some are asking (including some of the bishops themselves), "Why do we need a Confessing Movement?" The answer becomes evident through a closer look at the bishops’ report and a more precise understanding of pluralism. The report itself affirms that dialog "is needed in all segments of the church if we are to be faithful" (p. 11). The Confessing Movement is merely that segment of the church which feels particularly responsible for representing orthodox faith as expressed in the classic creeds and documents of Christianity, including documents in historic and contemporary Methodism. If the Confessing Movement ceased, we would be abdicating a role which the bishops themselves ask for!
The reason they ask for it lies precisely in the nature of the episcopacy in a pluralistic church. The bishops are charged with the temporal and theological oversight of the entire church. For one thing, this means they must be fair and attentive to all segments of the church, governing the institution as a whole. But it also means they are not free to disregard established doctrinal statements in the Book of Discipline. The bishops have given us an essential point of reference by upholding our core doctrines in Part II of the Book of Discipline, and they have encouraged "all segments" of the church to engage in dialog and debate on the myriad of sub-topics and issues related to our doctrines. They have set the parameters for "doing theology" in these areas. We can only hope that they will utilize our core beliefs to establish legitimate accountability when the various "interpretations" begin to come in.
Having set the parameters, they now invite dialog and debate. The Confessing Movement is needed at this time precisely because it is "a segment of the church" which stands for classical orthodoxy as set forth in our Book of Discipline. Without apology, the Confessing Movement can vigorously contend for the faith as witnessed by historic orthodoxy and reflected in our Disciplinary documents. The Confessing Movement does not have to be procedurally "pluralistic" in the same way the Council of Bishops does. On the contrary, it can take its place among "segments" exploring theology, and exercise its mission with focus and precision. When the Confessing Movement is at its best, it is simply trying to keep the church "honest" with respect to its own doctrinal standards. The Confessing Movement is needed because the need for normativeness never ceases.
The Caricature of Critique
Once, however, any group assumes the role of advocate, it opens itself up to critique. This is true of the radical liberals as well as the evangelical groups that have surfaced in recent months. To stand for something is to face those who stand for something else. The issue is not critique, but rather the avoidance of caricature in critique. Theological dialog implies the inevitability of critique. It also calls for the responsibility of critique.
The Confessing Movement seeks to be a responsible advocate of orthodoxy. The challenge is to engage in such activity in ways that do not treat antagonists inaccurately or unjustly. The history of theological debate reveals the difficulty of this task and the tendency of all sides to violate the ideal along the way. The Confessing Movement is needed at this time to insure that the orthodox position is accurately advocated, and that caricatures by others do not go unaddressed.
Among the main caricatures are suggestions that orthodox faith is narrow-minded, judgmental, legalistic, punitive, patriarchal, outdated, non-progressive, and irrelevant. I would concede that orthodoxy is sometimes presented in these ways, but I contend that it is none of these things in its essence. The Confessing Movement is needed to hold others accountable for what they say regarding orthodox belief.
The Confessing Movement is also needed to clarify the objectives of orthodox Christianity. Caricature takes place here as well. When vitriolic language flies wild and free, evangelicals are labeled as being on a "witch-hunt," as denying "civil rights," as advocating "chauvinistic" faith, as being "unloving," and as trying to "divide the church," etc. The Confessing Movement is needed to eschew such caricatures and to reflect the authentic concerns of this segment of United Methodist people. The core positions of the Confessing Movement, as I understand them, are these: orthodoxy is normative for Christian faith and life, the United Methodist doctrinal statements adequately reflect orthodoxy and clearly present what we consider the beliefs of the church to be, that heresy (that is, a flagrant denial of historic faith) is real and present in the church today, and that it is the responsibility of orthodox Christians to resist heresy and to advocate the officially-held position of the United Methodist Church. The Confessing Movement is needed because the caricature of critique can never be a solution.
The Reality of Reform
Basic sociology teaches that institutions are in a constant state of change. It also teaches that people who reject new paradigms are most often those who administer the institution. "Institutionalists" frequently deny the need for reform, delay the reform, or manage it in ways that do not truly reform. As such, when "reformers" appear, they are often treated with disdain, viewed with suspicion, or manipulated with stonewalling tactics.
From my point of view, both the radical left-wing and conservative groups are trying to bring about change in the church. That is not the issue. The issue is what kind of change. The radical left genuinely believes that the church must be reformed by a comprehensive "re-imagining" of Christian faith. A look at their own writing proves this has been their agenda for at least twenty years! If they are bold enough to put it in print, we are not mistaken to point it out. The radical left is on a mission to chancre the church by fundamentally altering its doctrine. They know it, and so do we.
While not rejecting the necessity of reform in the United Methodist Church. The Confessing Movement is needed to challenge and rebuff this agenda. The Confessing Movement is a reforming movement, but it is a movement which believes that reformation does not, cannot, and must not contradict two thousand years of received tradition which has been confined repeatedly by responsible church Councils. The Confessing Movement believes that God’s revelation in Scripture and the orthodox interpretation of that revelation provide the "trajectory" for reformation. God does not will a "new" faith or a "new" church (as defined by the radical left), but God does will a reformed church that commits itself to "serve the present age" with creativity, relevance, and fidelity.
The Confessing Movement is needed to properly channel the direction of reform. All over the earth a fresh Wind of the Spirit is blowing. Unless United Methodism acknowledges and participates in what God is doing in our time, we will become a denomination that, although preserving a form, will not have the power. The call to reformation is essential. The direction of reformation is crucial. The Confessing Movement believes that the Holy Spirit wants to do a new and mighty work within and through the United Methodist Church; but it will not be a work that contradicts or cancels out historic Christian faith or the traditional Wesleyan interpretation of it. We do not have to reject the past in order to move into the future.
I do not believe the Confessing Movement is a perfect instrument, or that it has (or will have) no need of repentance along the way. But this is one of those times in church history when crucial issues are sufficiently at stake to warrant responsible representation. To engage in the proper defense of orthodoxy is not "straining at gnats," it is the legitimate reaction of godly people who grieve when they see others attempting to strip away the truth of the Gospel. For them, remaining silent is not an option.
Steve Harper received his Ph.D. from Duke University in Wesley Studies. Dr. Harper is executive director of A Foundation for Theological Education and founder of Shepherd’s Care, a ministry to ministers. Published in the March/April 1995 issue of Good News.