Archive: Is the UM Church a Confessional Denomination?
By Kenneth Cain Kinghorn
During the 1960s, a cult of self expression mushroomed within both secular society and America’s oldline denominations. Certain people within the churches substituted individual autonomy for established theological norms and traditional ethical guidelines. Heterodox theologies and controversial sexual mores seemed more important than searching the Scriptures and seeking God. Theologians inveighed against the alleged “lockstep theology” of their denominations’ confessions of faith and demanded that their churches recognize and celebrate doctrinal diversity. In response to the clamor for “new directions in theology” and an “inclusive church,” United Methodism’s 1972 General Conference added to the Discipline a new doctrinal statement, “Our Theological Task.”
This document made the unprecedented declaration that United Methodism’s established standards of doctrine “are not to be construed literally and juridically” and declared that “theological pluralism should be recognized as a principle.” For the first time, the 1972 Discipline encouraged the denomination’s membership to engage in “serious interfaith encounters and explorations between Christianity and other living religions of the world—including modern secular religions of humanism, communism, and utopian democracy” (¶70, pp. 75, 69, 81).
During the quadrennium 1972-76 United Methodists debated whether or not theological and doctrinal pluralism had either guidelines or limits. For instance, a student pastor in Ohio complained to his district superintendent that his seminary professor denied Christ’s virgin birth, atonement, resurrection, and ascension. The denominational official shrugged his shoulders and said, “We are not a confessional church, and you can’t criticize others for their religious beliefs.” UM membership roles seriously declined, and some observers contended that, in part, the decline was due to the church’s failure to preach and teach its established doctrines. The adoption of pluralism had spawned ambiguity and confusion.
The 1976 General Conference acknowledged the theological uncertainty and fragmentation in the church: “Some would wish traditional doctrinal statements and standards recovered and enforced; some would demand that they be repealed … [or] superseded.” Out of a fear of “partisanship and schism,” the conference reaffirmed that despite the problems generated by pluralism, it was a United Methodist “principle” (the 1976 Discipline, ¶69, p. 72).
The quadrennium 1976-80 brought further theological debate regarding the church’s doctrinal standards. Denominational membership continued to decline. Dean Thomas Ogletree observed, “[The church] appears uncertain and apologetic about whether there are any clear standards of doctrine to which we are all answerable when we speak to and for the church. … [Pluralism] has tended to legitimate theological ‘indifferentism,’ the attitude that just about any sincerely held belief is acceptable among United Methodists.”[1]
The 1980 General Conference slightly softened the church’s position on pluralism. On recommendation of the Committee on Doctrine, the delegates changed the statement, “Theological pluralism should be recognized as a principle,” to, “We recognize the presence of theological pluralism.” This toning down of pluralism signaled a wish to prevent theological anarchy.
The 1984 General Conference once again addressed the confusion surrounding pluralism. Delegates adopted the recommendation of the Committee on Doctrine to add to “Our Theological Task” a bold face insertion: “[W]e recognize under the guidance of our doctrinal standards and guidelines (¶ 67 and 68) the presence of theological pluralism.” Furthermore, the 1984 General Conference approved a recommendation of the Committee on Discipleship that “the Council of Bishops appoint a committee on the theological task … to prepare a new statement that will reflect the needs of the church and report to the 1988 General Conference.”
Accordingly, the Council of Bishops appointed a committee of lay and clergy persons, instructing this body to present a revised theological statement to the 1988 General Conference. The committee, under the chairmanship of Bishop Earl Hunt, substantially moderated the 1972 statement on pluralism, and prior to the 1988 General Conference, circulated a new version of “Our Theological Task.” Emphasizing the primacy of Scripture, the revised statement sought to clarify confusion about the so-called quadrilateral.[2] On May 5, 1988, the General Conference approved the revised “Our Theological Task” by a vote of 826 to 52. Furthermore, the revised Discipline section, “Our Doctrinal History,” reminded the church that “The Constitution of the United Methodist Church … protects both the Articles of Religion and the Confession of Faith as doctrinal standards that shall not be revoked, altered, or changed” (¶ 68, p. 60).
Many believed that General Conference’s clear reaffirmation of the primacy of Scripture and the binding nature of the church’s formal doctrinal standards had clarified sixteen years of ambiguity and confusion. However, those who favored broad doctrinal pluralism continued to insist that United Methodism is “a non-confessional church.” Perhaps the best way to begin a discussion of a “confessional church” is to define the term. Historically, the term has been used to signify at least three meanings.
First, “confessing church” sometimes refers to the German Evangelical Christians who, between 1933 and 1945, opposed the syncretistic German Faith Movement and the Nazi-sponsored Faith Movement of German Christians.[3] German evangelical Christians believed that these two movements compromised the Gospel by merging it either with non-Christian philosophies or with Nazi political aims. The Confessing Church organized in 1934 and was led by Hans Lilje and Martin Niemöller. It included such supporters as Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoeffer. The German government persecuted the Confessing Church by incarcerating its pastors and forcing its young people into Nazi youth organizations.
Second, the term “confessing church” may also refer to those post-Reformation church bodies that define themselves primarily by their doctrinal confessions. Those groups contended that their theological formulations were absolute and final. They enforced their doctrinal standards by ecclesiastical authority and frequently contended about exact words and phrases. One historian recorded, “Even worship became a vehicle of hatred rather than a means of grace. … Vulpine ears were quick to hear whether [the pastor] reversed the Lord’s Prayer and said (like the Calvinists) Vater unser instead of unser Vater [our Father].”[4] In 1592, some German Lutherans actually sang the polemical hymn:
“Guard Thou Thy saints with Thy Word, O Lord,
And Smite the Calvinists with Thy sword!”
Even today, this type of rigid confessionalism continues in some circles. Certain religious groups elevate the words and phrases of their doctrinal formulations to a level of supreme importance and remain emphatically unwilling to fellowship with all who do not agree verbatim. In the past, such implacable dogmatism led to excommunications and religious wars. In our time, extreme doctrinal inflexibility hinders Christian ecumenism and feeds schism. In this sense, United Methodism is not “confessional”—except in some pockets where inflexible political correctness insists on certain exact phrases and strictly prohibits the use of others.
Third, the term “confessing church” can also refer to those denominations which hold to confessions of faith that set forth the fundamental articles of belief they regard as necessary for salvation and the well-being of the church. Almost all denominations have formal doctrinal standards which are contained in articles of religion, confessions of faith, or creeds. In this sense, most Christian denominations are confessing churches.
There are, of course, a few denominations which have no doctrinal standards, and these religious bodies are not confessing churches. They minimize or deny the value of creeds and doctrinal standards and focus instead on “the inner light,” reason, or social mores. These groups define themselves less by what they believe than by their social or political agenda. Such religious bodies include the Unitarian Universalist Association, certain Societies of Friends (Quakers), and some Congregational bodies. For instance, the United Church of Christ (formed in 1957) regards its 1959 “Statement of Faith” only as a testimony to the beliefs that the formulators held at the time the document was written. UCC members and congregations are neither bound by that “Statement of Faith” nor required to believe it.
Also, certain spiritual renewal groups contend that “doctrine divides.” They focus mostly on worship, while stressing feelings and “impressions from the Lord.” When subjectivism dominates a group, and people ignore doctrinal foundations for belief and practice, unscriptural teachings (often supported by proof texts) easily crowd in. By traditional measures, these religious societies do not fall into the category of confessional churches.
However, the majority of Christian denominations have creeds, articles of religion, or confessions of faith which articulate their doctrinal foundations. Such landmark documents appear in church disciplines, books of worship, catechisms, and hymnals. Liturgies for worship, church membership, and ordination also express these theological confessions. The UM Church has such a section in its 1992 Discipline— “Our Doctrinal Standards” and “General Rules.”
John Wesley and the early Methodist societies embraced the “Articles of Religion” of the Church of England and the creeds of the ancient church as “true and valid ” doctrinal expressions of the Christian faith.[5] And, from the first, Wesley’s Methodist conferences kept “Doctrinal Minutes” as well as “Disciplinary Minutes.”[6] In 1763, John Wesley prepared a Model Deed for his preaching houses in Great Britain. This deed provided that those who preached in Methodist places of worship must “preach no other doctrine” than established Methodist standards.[7]
On July 14th, 1773, the first American Methodist conference met in Philadelphia, eleven years before the Methodists in America officially organized as a denomination. The minutes of that conference of American Methodist preachers state that “the doctrine and discipline of the Methodists [must comprise] the sole rule of our conduct.” Furthermore, “If any preachers deviate from the minutes, we can have no fellowship with them till they change their conduct.”[8]
When the Methodist Episcopal Church formally organized in 1784, the newly-formed denomination adopted as doctrinal standards twenty-five Articles of Religion and John Wesley’s Standard Sermons and Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament. If ministers failed to “preach the doctrine” of the church, American Methodism’s founders insisted that “no ancient right or appointment shall prevent their being excluded from our connexion.”[9]
Historian Albert M. Shipp related an incident at a conference in 1792 at which Bishop Asbury presided:
“All were examined by the Bishop as to their confession of faith and orthodoxy of doctrine; two were found to be tending to Unitarianism. The Bishop requested all the members of the Conference to bring forward as many texts of Scripture as they could recollect to prove the personality of the Trinity. … The two preachers recanted their errors, and were continued in fellowship. Bishop Asbury preached from Titus 2:1, ‘But speak thou the things that become sound doctrine.’ … Deep feeling pervaded the audience; the sacrament was administered; the services were continued until near sundown; many sinners were awakened, and then souls were converted.”[10]
The 1792 Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal said that church members “clearly convicted of endeavoring to sow dissentions in any of our societies, by inveighing against … our doctrines … shall first be reproved by the senior Minister or Preacher of his circuit: and, if he afterwards persist in such pernicious practices, he shall be expelled.”[11]
In 1798, Methodism’s first two bishops, Thomas Coke and Francis Asbury, published annotations to a special edition of the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Coke and Asbury wrote, “We wish to see this little publication [the annotated Discipline] in the house of every Methodist, and the more so as it contains our plan of Christian education, and the articles of religion maintained, more or less, in part or in the whole, by every reformed church in the world. … Far from wishing you to be ignorant of any of our doctrines … we desire you to read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest the whole. We know you are not in general able to purchase many books: But you ought, next to the word of God, to procure the Articles and Canons of the church to which you belong.”[12]
Coke and Asbury contended, “Heretical doctrines are as dangerous, at least to the hearers, as the immoral life of a preacher. … Those must indeed be blind, who can sit for any time under the ministry of socinian, universalism, or any other heretical minister.”[13] Bishop Asbury frequently reminded his younger colleagues in the itinerant ministry of the importance of a clear understanding of Methodism’s confessional position.
When Bishop Asbury died, the renowned Methodist preacher, Ezekiel Cooper, delivered Asbury’s funeral sermon at the historic St. George’s Church in Philadelphia. Cooper said, “[Asbury] was careful to regulate, all his religious tenets and doctrines, by the book of God. Mr. Wesley’s Sermons, and Fletcher’s Checks [to Antinomianism], exemplify his leading doctrines.” Discussing Methodism’s doctrines, historian Able Stevens concluded, “They are the staple ideas of [the church’s] preaching, of its literature, of its … inquiries in its class-meetings, prayer-meetings, and in the Christian intercourse of its social life. … [the church’s] spiritual life and its practical system could not long subsist without its special theology.”[14]
At the 1808 General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, the delegates established restrictive Rules to safeguard the integrity of the church’s confessional standards. The First Restrictive Rule states, “They shall not revoke, alter, or change our articles of Religion, or establish any new standards or rules of doctrine contrary to our present existing and established standards of doctrine.” The uniting conference of 1939 which joined the M.E. Church, the M.E. Church, South, and the Methodist Protestant Church cited this Restrictive Rule and reaffirmed the new church’s commitment to the Articles of Religion.
Similarly, the United Brethren Church and the Evangelical Church established doctrinal standards when they first organized. When those two denominations merged in 1946 to form The Evangelical United Brethren Church, the new church adopted a Confession of Faith which contained the church’s doctrinal beliefs. In 1968, when the Evangelical United Brethren Church and the Methodist Church merged, the newly-formed United Methodist Church established the E.U.B. “Confession of Faith” and Methodism’s “Articles of Religion” as standards of doctrine. These theological confessions continue to appear in each edition of the Discipline, and the First Restrictive Rule protects them from alteration.
United Methodism’s Book of Worship and Book of Services further support the church’s doctrinal beliefs. The UM Hymnal contains ten ecumenical Christian creeds and affirmations that strengthen the biblical and consensual faith of Christianity. Weekly, most UM congregations confess the Apostles’ Creed.
United Methodism is not a confessional denomination in a rigid sense. For instance, the church does not refuse fellowship with those who use other ways to confess the catholic faith, such as the Lutheran Formula of Concord or the Presbyterian Westminster Confession. In another sense, however, the United Methodist Church is a confessional church: its members “shall not revoke, alter, or change our Articles of Religion, or establish any new standards or rules of doctrine contrary to our present existing and established standards of doctrine.”
In 1864, the Methodist Episcopal Church developed a ritual for receiving members which said, “Let none be received into the Church until they … give satisfactory assurances … of the correctness of their faith …. “[15] Included in the ritual is the statement, “The ends of this fellowship are the maintenance of sound doctrine.”[16]
Today’s UM membership vows include a covenant “to be loyal to the United Methodist Church and uphold it by prayer, presence, gifts, and service.” Loyalty to the church certainly includes belief in, and faithfulness to its doctrines. In the selection and ordination of clergy, the Discipline requires a knowledge of, a commitment to, and a promise to preach and maintain the doctrines of the United Methodist Church (¶ 425, p. 226). Similarly, the Discipline mandates that bishops “guard, transmit, teach, and proclaim, corporately and individually, the apostolic faith…. ” [ and] “teach and uphold the theological traditions of the United Methodist Church” (¶ 514, p. 280).
To say that the United Methodist Church is not a confessional denomination is to imply that the church does not confess a core of doctrines deemed essential for salvation and church order. Without a common confession of faith, each church member would be free to believe and teach what he or she pleases. However, the United Methodist Church is a confessional denomination. The evidence demonstrates it.
Footnotes
[1] Thomas W. Ogletree, “In Quest of a Common Faith: The Theological Task of United Methodists.” Quarterly Review, Vol. 8, No. 1, Spring, 1988, p. 44.
[2] The term quadrilateral refers to Scripture, reason, experience, and tradition. Some interpret the quadrilateral to mean that reason, experience, and tradition are coequal with Scripture. Others contend that Scripture constitutes the primary and final source of authority for the church.
[3] The German Faith Movement aimed at accommodating German Christianity to “the German spirit” and returning the nation to pre-Christian pagan religions. The Faith Movement of German Christians confined its membership to persons of Aryan descent, and it sought to make the German Church a united body which supported national socialism as championed by Adolf Hitler.
[4] Henry Drummond, German Protestantism Since Luther, London: The Epworth Press, 1951, p. 20.
[5] See Rupert E. Davis, “Doctrinal Standards of Methodism,” The Encyclopedia of World Methodism, ed. Noland B. Harmon, 2 vols., Nashville, The United Methodist Publishing House, 1974, I, 698.
[6] Frank Baker, “The People Called Methodists—3. Polity,” A History of the Methodist Church in Great Britain, 4 vols., London: Epworth Press, 1965, 1978, 1983, 1988, I, 243.
[7] Frank Baker, “The People Called Methodists—3. Polity,” A History of the Methodist Church in Great Britain, 4 vols., London: Epworth Press, 1965, 1978, 1983, 1988, I, 229.
[8] Minutes of the Methodist Conferences, Annually held in America; From 1773 to 1813, Inclusive, New York: Daniel Hitt & Thomas Ward, 1813, p. 5.
[9] Ibid., p. 48.
[10] Albert M. Shipp, The History of Methodism in South Carolina, Nashville: Southern Methodist Publishing House, 1883, p. 178.
[11] 1792 Discipline, “Bringing to Trial, Finding Guilty, and Reproving, Suspending, or Excluding Disorderly Persons from Society and Church Privileges,” Philadelphia: Printed by Perry Hall & Sold by John Dickins, 1792, pp. 56,57.
[12] Doctrines and Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church in America, with Explanatory Notes, by Thomas Coke and Francis Asbury, 1798, p. 4.
[13] Ibid, p. 189.
[14] Abel Stevens, History of the Methodist Episcopal Church, New York: Carlton & Porter, 1867, 4 vols., II, 215, 216
[15] 1864 Discipline, p. 37.
[16] Quoted in Frederick A. Norwood, Church Membership in the Methodist Tradition, Nashville: The Methodist Publishing House, 1958, p. 50.
0 Comments