Editorial
An episcopal charge to keep

by James V. Heidinger II

The United Methodist Church elected 21 new (U.S.) bishops in July. With some 50 active U.S. bishops, that means 42 percent of them are new. We must pray for them often. But the question is, "What do our bishops do?"

Well, they are to lead the church in its mission of witness and service in the world. And of course, they fix appointments. But in the liturgy of consecration, they are asked, "Will you guard the faith, order, liturgy, doctrine, and discipline of the church against all that is contrary to God's word?"  This question is remarkably theological.

The task for United Methodist bishops, then, is not simply to be a "moderator" or a conflict resolution facilitator, as they sometimes have to be. They have the critical assignment of being the custodians (though not owners or re-writers) of the church's doctrine, the guarantors of our church's fidelity to the apostolic faith. They are not alone in this. All ordained clergy have promised ".to defend the church against all doctrine contrary to God's Word." 

Thus, a major episcopal responsibility is to hold the church-its pastors, staff, lay leaders, and even other bishops-accountable for the faith, order, doctrine, and discipline of the church. Paul wrote to Titus that an elder ".must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it" (1:9). To refute means "to prove to be wrong or false." Obviously, this episcopal task is not easy in a post-modern culture.

So, at a time when the unity of the UM Church is threatened, our bishops have a major challenge to lead in a way that is faithful to the doctrine and discipline of the church. There are issues to which they must attend right away.

First, our bishops cannot ignore the disturbing reality that the entire Western Jurisdiction has declared itself (at its 2000 Jurisdictional Conference) to be marching to a different drumbeat. The statement it passed in 2000, entitled "We Will Not Be Silent," defies our Book of Discipline's stance on human sexuality. In so declaring, the Jurisdiction is ignoring the larger church, arguably breaking covenant with it. The Council of Bishops must confront this Jurisdiction, seeking to restore its leadership to faithfulness. The Council must also find ways to provide pastoral oversight to evangelical clergy and laity in that Jurisdiction who are being made to feel they are out of step with progressive Christian thinking. These clergy and laity are trying to be faithful to the church's standards and Biblical teaching, but are being made to feel they are less than Christian. Simply noting we have regional differences is not an adequate solution.

Second, bishops must avoid finding safe harbor in a non-controversial middle ground. We realize, of course, that they are called to be "bishops of the whole church." But during times of moral and doctrinal controversy, bishops must not exempt themselves from taking a faithful and well-articulated stand simply because someone somewhere might be offended. The church needs the Council's guidance and informed teaching, not its neutrality. When news of the controversial "Re-Imagining Conference" broke a decade ago, it took the Council of Bishops some ten months to make a statement. When it finally did, its statement was tepid, weak, and of little help.

Third, in light of the consecration vows taken by bishops, they need to consider seriously whether they have the privilege of being dissenters of the church's doctrine and discipline. According to Webster's, to dissent is "to disagree, to think differently, to refuse to accept the doctrines and forms of an established church."

Here's the problem. Our pastors pledge publicly that they have studied our doctrines, agree with them, and will preach them faithfully. Further, when pastors are consecrated as bishops, they promise to "guard the faith, order, liturgy, doctrine, and discipline of the church." But the question is this: can one be, with integrity, both a bishop and a dissenter? Or even a pastor and a dissenter? That is, can one promise to preach and defend the doctrines of the church, then turn around and deny them? (I am speaking of our core doctrine and moral teaching.) If words have meaning, one cannot be both. The roles are mutually exclusive.

Fourth, there are things to which bishops must say "No." Thomas Oden reminds us that only when the church has the courage to say no, will its affirmations have moral force. "Not until Athanasius.challenged Arius did the church's faith become clearly defined. Only when Luther nailed his Ninety-Five Theses to the Wittenberg door did a reformation.begin. Not until the Confessing Church in Nazi Germany boldly rejected the specific idolatries of German Christians did their witness become credible in the Barmen Declaration. The yes to the truth of God does not happen without a tough no to false opposition" (The Rebirth of Orthodoxy, p. 129).

These are formidable challenges for a new Council of Bishops. Let's pray they will be not just moderators, but also leaders.