There has been extensive coverage in Christian circles with regard to
the proposed split of the United Methodist Church. Many Evangelical leaders
count it a good thing as for once there is resistance within a Mainline body, a
sign of life and a sign of vitality, that people are willing to stand for
something. The acceptance and open embrace of sodomy by a large faction within
the UMC is a step too far and the conservatives are revolting.
As far as it goes this point is to be applauded. In these days it is
rare thing indeed for a large ecclesiastical body to exhibit any form of
spiritual life or discernment. The track record over the past century has been
nothing less than dismal.
However I don't think there's really much to celebrate and in fact I
would go further and suggest the coverage is misleading. The truth is the UMC
has been apostate for decades and anyone serious about Scriptural fidelity
should have left the denomination long ago.
The discussions are obscured by sidetracks and rabbit-trails regarding
'unity' and 'churchmanship' but even these conversations and debates are
misleading as they are predicated on the assumed validity of the denominational
structure. Once this is assumed a host of categories and questions are created
that range far beyond the scope of New Testament ecclesiology and in many cases
bog down the necessary or essential debate and lead many Christians to focus on
issues that are secondary or have been miscast. For many years I have
diligently followed the reporting over the controversies within Anglicanism and
Methodism and I have to say that probably 90% of the coverage is a waste of
time. Focusing on secondary questions it seems that at times the news outlets are
doing all they can to avoid the essential issues of epistemology and authority.
To tie Scriptural unity to denominational bureaucracy is an unfortunate
mistake and has proven very harmful throughout post-Reformational history. Conservatives
and Confessionalists have repeatedly fallen into this error and then as their denominations
'go liberal', they (the liberals) turn these very arguments and assumptions
against them.
Even today denominationalism is a hindrance to reform and prevents many
otherwise sound people from acting and labouring to create strong (albeit
smaller in size) Biblically faithful congregations. From the nature of the
bureaucracy to sentimentality and notions of institutional loyalty the
discussions are quickly led astray and are bogged down by secondary and even
tertiary issues.
I suppose what continues to disturb me with regard to the coverage over
the UMC issue is that I continually hear Evangelical and even Confessional
commentators refer to the anti-sodomite UMC faction as 'conservative'. While
resistance to sodomy is indeed a conservative position (which in this case
means a more Biblical position), the truth is that the 'conservative' UMC
factions aren't conservative. They might be somewhat on this point and yet
often even those resisting full inclusion are often somewhat ambivalent on the
issue of homosexuality in general.
Secondly, few (if any) are actually conservative in terms of the
Scripture or historic Protestant views of it. Most have embraced theologically liberal
views of the Scripture and its doctrines and most still embrace things like the
ordination of women. In fact all too often when the media speaks to one of the
'conservatives' within the UMC the voice is that of an ordained woman.
I personally know of UMC members that are resistant to the pro-sodomy
faction in the denomination. They are conservative in a sense. They are
uncomfortable with the full inclusion of sodomy and in other cases their
conservatism is really located more in the realm of social morality and
politics. They watch FOX news but their views on the Bible are actually pretty
shaky and well within the theologically liberal camp. I would even go far as to
say a 19th century liberal such as Philip Schaff looks actually
quite conservative next to them. From my own observations I can safely say they
have no problem with issues like women's ordination and while they're
pro-marriage, they're pretty uncertain with regard to fornication, divorce and
many other issues.
The focus on and condemnation of women's ordination is not due to
misogyny or anything of that nature. It's a case of the Scriptures being quite
explicit and those that cross the line and disobey the Scriptures on this point
demonstrate a view of Scripture that is less than solid. Once they've crossed
the line and are willing to relegate clear creationally-rooted commands to mere
cultural trifles, they're on a fast-track to abandoning the larger teachings of
Scripture. This point is certainly a bellwether, indicative of where people are
at and even more importantly where they are going.
So the point is the 'conservatives' (as they're being reckoned by
commentators) are not really conservative. They're still theological liberals
and thus no committed Biblically-minded Christian is going to take them
seriously or consider attending their congregations.
I am not surprised that the mainstream media is unable to navigate these
waters, but I am consistently amazed listening to supposedly conservative
'discernment' types cover this story. The fact that the 'conservatives' are not
conservatives at all ought to be a pretty major component to the story but
apparently they as commentators are either ignorant of the issues or the fuller
and transparent truth doesn't serve their larger social-dominionist agenda...
and as far as Christian media is concerned, is conveniently left out of the
story.
Finally
there's yet another aspect to this story that ought to concern us. While I do
not in any way shape or form lament the fall of the UMC and in many ways count
it a good thing, the truth is the breakup will be ugly and prove a spectacle
for the eyes of the lost world.
In my area
every hamlet has a UMC congregation although many have closed and consolidated
over the past twenty years and so now there are growing numbers of empty
buildings. The UMC (like the PCUSA and ELCA) provides a cover for apostasy, a
comfort to those who actually need to be seriously challenged and shaken. All
too often the latitudinarianism and baptised secularism of the Mainline lulls
them to sleep and when challenged by someone with a Bible in hand, they run to
the institutional comfort that a building, bureaucracy and credentialed clergy
provides. It's a wicked thing and it would be better for the Church (in the
greater sense) for such counterfeits to be forced out. Many would voluntarily
head for the doors if they were actually confronted with Biblical teaching. The
antithesis that is so sorely needed at this time is largely unattainable as
long as the Mainline congregations continue to function.
There are
a few UMC congregations that have an Evangelical flavour and in some respects
these are better but in another sense they're worse. I know of otherwise
conservative Evangelical-types that have been confused and misled by these
'evangelical' congregations and will even participate with them in ecumenical
events. And when the 'pastoress' shows up, they tolerate it and still will more
readily acknowledge such a Jezebel who is part of a 'proper' institution than
they would some 'fringish' congregation meeting in a home or some such place.
In their muddled thinking, the institution with its buildings and bureaucracies
grants legitimacy but that's not what the New Testament teaches is it? Is bureaucracy
the mark of the Church? Is a building with a sign the sine qua non, the non-negotiable element that grants a church
validity?
But with
the breakup will come scandal. In small towns there will be bitterness and
backstabbing. I've already seen it happen with the closing of some
congregations. Contrary to the most basic of New Testament directives there
will be lawsuits and fights over buildings, property and of course trusts and
endowments... money. It will be a spectacle of shame and once again a fruit (or
fallout) resulting from the institutional and culturally accommodating mindset
so common in American Christianity. This is the curse of sacral thinking which
is able to transcend both 'conservative' and liberal circles. Instead of the
Church thinking of itself in terms of antithesis, it is at peace (if not one)
with the culture and it readily adopts its values and tactics.
Faithful
Christians not only need to leave the UMC but they need to repent that they did
not leave it long ago. And in this hour of confusion and need for discernment
the many conservative commentators are abdicating their responsibility and
supposed calling. So eager for a cultural victory they are content to watch
thousands leave the proverbial frying pan and yet do little more than step into
the fire. Some undoubtedly will endorse this course on the basis of
incrementalism and so the can is once more kicked down the road. The crisis is
averted because the leaders think there's still more fight to be had. In truth
they are fighting the wrong fight. They're engaged in a struggle for the
culture and even as they continue to lose battles and score at best Pyrrhic
'victories', they continue to let the Church slip into decline. The actual
battle is being ignored while they obsess with fighting their phony war for
what is at best a faux-Kingdom.
See also:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.