5/31/12

Bishop Cannon on Scripture and Interpretation

In The United Methodist Church we use Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and holy Experience to help us interpret the Bible and discern God's will. This is sometimes called "The Wesleyan Quadrilateral" though our official theological documents do not use that term (I prefer "the 4-fold hermeneutic" myself).

Sometimes people understand the heading of "experience" to mean "whatever beliefs or opinions I have come be believe based upon my own life experience" (which in turn almost always is used for advocating a practice that the Bible forbids for God's people). The theological section of The Book of Discipline, our book of doctrine and canon law, actually reminds us that we are primarily talking about the experience of salvation - of justification and sanctification - and that the authority of the Bible is primary. Our Book of Discipline is also clear that Reasoning and Experience has an individual AND corporate aspect - the corporate wisdom and experience of the Church being what is passed along in canon law and tradition. And over all of these stands the authority of the Bible.  Learn more about Methodist theology here.

What follows is a quote on the authority of Scripture from Bishop William Ragsdale Cannon, one of the greatest United Methodist theologians of the 20th Century, addressing this possible misuse of the 4-fold Hermeneutic (which I found here). 

God’s revelation of himself and the deeds he performed are narrated in the Bible, which is the single source of our Christian faith. The so-called Wesleyan quadrilateral is not Wesleyan at all. It ought to be named the Albert Outler quadrilateral, naming as it does the source of our religion as the Bible, reason, tradition, and experience. The latter three are really interpretive tools to help us understand the contents of the Bible. They supply no revelatory material themselves. John Wesley, in the preface to his sermons, said that God gave us a book which provides us with his plan for our salvation. The Bible tells us all we need to know, indeed, can possibly know about how to be saved and win a place in heaven. He, therefore, called himself 'a man of one book.'

The Bible then is God’s gift to us, not a book humans have composed for themselves and given to themselves for their own edification. It is his chart for their happiness and satisfaction here, and their blessedness in heaven. Therefore, to change one jot or one tittle of it, to try to make it conform to some human interest, concern, or cause is to risk damnation. We are to receive it as it is written, with open hearts and eager minds, and through it to be instructed in the ways of God. To attempt to rewrite it or in any way modify it from a racist, feminist, liberationist, liberal, conservative, or any other perspective not its own is the most dangerous of all heresies and an abomination of desolation too awful to conceive.

It is time we heed Saint Augustine’s warning against the juggling and misuse of Scripture to suit our own predisposition. “If you believe what you like in the Gospel and reject what you dislike, it is not the Gospel you believe but yourselves.”

–Bishop William R. Cannon (served several Episcopal Areas of The United Methodist Church in his career)

I have often been challenged by that deeply true saying of St. Augustine.  The good bishop is quite right in that a careful reading of our doctrinal sources indicates that, for the Christian in the Wesleyan tradition, the Scripture is our primary and supreme theological authority, and that it is to be interpreted using Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience.  Our own preferences cannot veto the clear teachings of Holy Scripture though for preachers, for church councils, and for the average Christian the temptation to trust in self instead of God's revealed word is very real, and often quite subtle.
Even moving beyond the "hot-button" debates about sexuality, we must be on our guard against this subtle idolatry that can show up in so many areas of our lives: does God really expect me to forgive my spouse...or my enemy?  Does God really want me to give a tithe - or even give beyond 10% of my income for the relief of the poor and the work of the Kingdom?  Submission is hard - and it can only come from trusting God, that is, from faith.

Labels: , ,

5/22/12

Catholic institutions sue over contraception rule

Posted from the La Times:

"WASHINGTON-- The battle between the Obama administration and some prominent Catholic institutions intensified Monday when 43 Catholic groups, including the archdioceses of Washington, D.C., and New York, and Notre Dame and Catholic universities, filed suit across the country challenging a federal mandate requiring them to provide contraception to their employees.
The organizations say the administration’s contraceptive requirement would compel them to violate church teaching. Some employers are exempt from the federal mandate – but many are not, including schools, hospitals and charities that offer their services widely.
Timothy Cardinal Dolan, the archbishop of New York, said the suits reflect frustration with the administration and Congress."

Check out the full story here.

Here are my "2 cents" worth:

As I reflect upon this issue, I am reminded of the Thomas Jefferson quote:
"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical."
(from: The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, p. 663, by Thomas Jefferson, Edited by John P. Foley, Funk & Wagnalls Company, New York and London, 1900)

As I have listened to the coverage on NPR news (which I do every day, even though it is uniformly leftist in its perspective on political issues), I have heard again and again commentators saying things like "How horrible it is that women still have to fight for access to birth control."  But this sort of commentary distorts the issue since this is not about "access" - no one is being denied access to birth control, it will still be available at every single pharmacy in America and in numerous truck-stop bathrooms for 75 cents - the question is who will pay for it.

Unfortunately, Catholic (and other) Christians are now compelled to pay not only for the propagation of opinions contrary to their faith, but are compelled to do so by paying for the very practices that they find objectionable.  In essense, from the Catholic Church's point of view - and that of other Christian groups opposed to artificial birth control for theological reasons - the government is forcing the Church to pay money to help individuals sin, and by extension, the Church is being forced to implicitly legitimize a practice that they consider contrary to the will of our Creator, since actions and beliefs are always connected.  Surely the Administration can see how perverse this is from the Catholic point of view, even if they do not share this point of view? 

I also cannot help but think how utterly unnecessary this fight seems to be, when we actually get past the slogans being thrown around by all sides to some of the actual details involved.  While it is true that some birth control drugs can cost as much as $100 per month, a month's supply of some generic birth control pills can run as low as $20-35; a box of condomns can be had for about $4.  Surely, even the lower-wage employees of Catholic institutions can come up with this kind of money; and let's not forget (as some commentators seem to have done) that it is employees of Catholic institutions that we are talking about here, not every employee of every business in the country.  Surely these employees can come up with a few dollars for "protection" if they are determined to be sexually active - and we must also remember (as often seems completely neglected by some in this debate) that sexual activity is a choice not a necessity. 

So, considering that we are only talking about a few dollars, why are the politicians determined to have this fight?  In the early days of this dispute the Administration's position was, "Ooops, we didn't consider Catholic Church's objections when crafting the legislation, so let's find a way to accomodate them."  But that has not happened, and I have to wonder: why not?  It begins to look distressingly like an ideological issue to me.

While I do not share the Roman Catholic theological objections to artificial birth control, I am deeply distressed by the Administration's apparent disregard for the deeply held religious beliefs of a huge number of Americans, and so I do hope that this litigation succeeds in blocking the contraception rule. 

Labels: , , , ,

5/17/12

Ascension Day!

Today is Ascension Day! 

Today (and this coming Sunday for many of us) we celebrate what one of my professors called the fourth and final 'salvific mystery' or saving accomplishment of Christ that is recounted in the Creeds: after being born among us of the Virgin Mary, after suffering and dying to take away our sins on the cross, after rising from the dead with New Creation Life, Christ has also ascended into heaven, taking our fully restored human nature into the throne room, into the closest intimacy with the Father. 

When the divine Logos (Word) himself took on human nature and "became flesh and dwelt among us" he brought human nature and divine nature together in his person (as St. Athanasius emphasizes in his famous treatise, On the Incarnation).  Now he brings his human nature with him back into heaven, to the right hand of God the Father.  In so many different ways, it is Jesus Christ who brings God and humanity together, who reconciles us and makes "at-one-ment" to happen. 

For United Methodists, our books of worship and liturgy give us three prayer options for our Ascension celebration (Hymnal 323, Book of Worship 403 and 404).  Here is a prayer for this high holy day from The United Methodist Book of Worship:

Almighty God, your blessed Son, our Savior Jesus Christ, ascended far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.  Mercifully give us faith to perceive that, according to his promise, he abides with his Church on earth, even to the end of the world; through the same your Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.  Amen.

(The United Methodist Book of Worship 403 - taken from the Scottish Book of Common Prayer)

Labels: , , , , ,

5/7/12

Thoughts on General Conference from a non-delegate

High Hopes and Great Expectations
The 2012 General Conference of the (worldwide) United Methodist Church wrapped up Friday.  Many had hoped that the GC2012 would put aside divisive arguments over sexual morality and make sweeping changes to the way the church organizes itself, spends money, and gives oversight to our connectional ministries (those boards, agencies, and programs that are shared by and representative of the whole church).  There was much talk going into the Conference about "reforming the church to increase congregational vitality."

I had high hopes that at least some structural reforms would be made that would make better use of our resources, but I did not expect (as others seemed to) that reforms made to General Boards and Agencies would have some direct effect on vitality and mission at the local level.  That, it seems to me, depends directly on local leadership and is almost completely unconnected to what the General Boards are doing.

Coming into the General Conference leaders such as the Council of Bishops, the Connectional Table and several church-vitality consultants had issued the "Call To Action."  The Call to Action laid out a plan for reform and restructuring that included reducing the size and the number of General Boards and Agencies and creating more accountability for them, ending "guaranteed appointments" for clergy who are deemed ineffective (so that "job performance" will now matter), creating a set-aside Presiding Bishop for the United Methodist Church who would have no local churches to oversee but would lead ecumenical efforts and function as a spokesman for the whole Church.

Some were wary that the Call to Action Plan seemed to concentrate more power in the hands of the bishops without creating additonal accountability for the bishops.  Many worried that the Board and Agency cuts were either too deep or insufficient.  Many are unsure what the end to "guaranteed appointments" will mean in practice.

Two alternative restructure plans - one from the liberal/revisionist MFSA and another called "Plan B" (a less sweeping restructure than the Call to Action proposal) - were also discussed.  The committee charged with bringing a restructure proposal to the floor of GC 2012 debated all of these plans well after their adjournment deadline (Sat. the 28th), but failed to endorse one.  Many were quite distressed at this point.

Plan UMC: Hope gives way to Debacle
At the beginning of the week a compromise called "Plan UMC" incorporating elements from all three plans was cobbled together for consideration on Monday.  After due debate Plan UMC was passed and we all said, "Well, they really did something to streamline the Boards and create more accountability.  Hurrah!" 
But then the Plan UMC debacle began.  In the final hours of General Conference, the Judicial Council (the Church's "Supreme Court") ruled that the plan violated our church's constitution, and is therefore null and void.  Whoops!

So, delegates scrambled in the closing hours and minutes to pass some legislation, any legislation, that would at least reduce the size and cost of some of our General Boards and agencies.

The proposal for a set-aside full-time President of the Council of Bishops (already being called the Methodist 'presiding bishop' or 'archbishop') also failed.  It received a majority of votes, but as it was a constitutional amendment, it required a 2/3 majority to pass.  Apparently many delegates were confused or uneasy with this idea, which I tentatively supported as a potential move back towards our Anglican heritage and the historic and ecumenical consensus.

OK, So what did happen?
One of the only bits of reform proposed by the Call To Action team that DID pass was the end of "guaranteed" appointments for ordained presbyters (decons have never had such a guarantee).  In the old days any Elder who did not break church law was guaranteed an appointment as a pastor.  Elders (presbyters) must now show fruits and signs of "effectiveness" in order to be appointed by the bishop as pastor to a church.  On the flip side, new checks and balances have been put in place so that the bishop cannot simply "un-appoint" someone for personal reasons.  The bishop must explain the "missional reasoning" and get approval from the Board of Ministry to "un-appoint" a pastor.  What difference will this make?  I think it remains to be seen.  I hope and pray that it will indeed be an effective tool for encouraging clergy excellence.
 
The General Conference, not surprisingly, upheld the United Methodst Church's traditional understanding of marriage and sexual morality, despite very visible and vocal protests from some liberal/revisionist groups.  Though most of the historic/liturgical/mainline Protestant denominations in the US have drifted to the left on this issue, the UMC has held firm to Biblical teaching in large part because we are a world-wide church and our gathering features delegates from  Europe, Asia and the Philippines, Russia, and perhaps most notably, Africa.  If anything, recent years have seen The United Methodist Church take a couple of small steps to the right (moving back toward the center in my view) on this issue.  Since the fastest growing parts of our church are overseas and in more conservative regions of the US, and the fastest shrinking parts of the church are in more liberal parts of the US, it is likely that future General Conferences will continue to uphold the traditional (and increasingly counter-cultrual) Christian views on sexual morality.

My own systematic theology professor from seminary, William J. Abraham (a spirited reformer himself), was elected to the University Senate, which approves which seminaries our clergy may attend.  This is perhaps the smartest thing the GC actually did.

Reactions
Considering the high hopes that many had for sweeping reform at GC 2012, it comes as no surprise that much of the reaction I have read has been quite negative.  Some joked on twitter that we should stick "2012" stickers on the covers or our 2008 Books of Discipline since, apparently, almost nothing has changed.  There certainly was no serious restructure.  In fact "nothing" was the word many used to describe what this General Conference accomplished (at the cost of millions of dollars).  Many petitions were not even considered by the full body because time simply ran out.  Having watched much (too much) of the ponderous proceedings online I share the frustration of many.

I do however think it is worth asking the question at this point: Is legislation and changing the Disicpline really THE reason for holding General Conference?  What if the delegates simply got together, worshipped, prayed, shared testimonies, and then declared that everything in the Discipline was just fine, so no legislation was needed?  Would such a General Conference be said to have accomplished nothing?  Or would it rather be cause for great celebration?

Unfortunately, this was not the case at GC 2012, which clearly agreed on the urgent need for many course corrections for the church but proved unable to enact them.  Perhaps my impessions were shaped too much by the many cynical facebook and twitter comments on the GC homepage, but our much-celebrated diversity seemed at times to paralyze the delegates in a sea of mis-understanding and indeed mis-trust.  There were so many people, coming from different places with different languages, different perspectives, and different agendas - it seemed that delegates often simply did not understand one another; and things had to proceed slowly to allow for translations and clarifications.  It may be that such is simply the burden of a world-wide church (and always has been), but I can see how some people were left with the feeling that General Conference is "broken."

Suggestions for the Future:
I believe there are some practical things that General Conference can do to address at least some of these issues in the future:

1. Schedule more time!!! 
If we keep doing what we have been doing, then the work of a General Conference is clearly going to take more time than we have typically scheduled.  Future General Conferences should schedule a free day (or two) at the end of conference to allow unfinished business to be addressed.  If all business has been completed, such time could be profitably used for (apparently much needed) relationship-building, prayer, and conversation.

2. Address controversial and complex issues first, then move to easier stuff
Controversial and complex issues (such as sexuality reports and restructuring) will clearly require more discussion time and should not be put off until the end of Conference.

3. Address Book of Discipline legislation before addressing ANY Resolutions
The Book of Discipline is our book of canon law that is binding on us all.  The Book of Resolutions represents official "guidance" or "suggestions" from the Church, but has no binding character or canonical force.  I watched a debate about a Resolution for the divesting of the church from Israeli companies drag on and on, yet when all was said and done, no one was technically "bound" by what it said if the Resolution passed (and it failed).  What if these precious minutes and hours had been used addressing restructuring instead?  Might we have accomplished much more?

4. We need to do some real soul-searching about the point of "holy conferencing"
Is "producing legislation" really the reason that we gather?  From the way people use the phrase "holy conferencing" among Methodists, one gets the impression that, the more parliamentary maneuvers are made and rules invoked, the "holier" our conferencing becomes.

5. Find less costly venues
Why do we spend millions on convention centers when we have so many Methodist colleges and large churches (and perhaps some larger retreat centers too) that could house this event at a fraction of the cost?

6. Reconsider how online conversation is handled
From what I saw on the facebook and twitter feed, the vast majority of comments were negative, cynical, or combative.  I tried to point out then that we can not realistically expect twitter/facebook feeds to be suitable platforms for discussing complex moral and theological issues and that they rather lend themselves more easily to name-calling.  Cynical, fearful, and more interested in name-calling than in real discussion may (or may not!) be a good snapshot of our (especially younger) membership, but it seems we could find better ways to allow online conversation around the GC.  I wonder if much of the negative commentary was perhaps simply the vented frustration of people whose favored legislation did not pass.

7. Get complex legislation in the hands of delegates well in advance
On the Restructuring proposals, it would have been great if questions and proposals could have been explored and addressed by delegates before they even arrived, saving more time for well-informed and constructive debate.

These are my early-formed thoughts.  What are yours?

Labels: ,