Confessing Movement statement on unity risks fostering disunity

The Confessing Movement, a caucus within United Methodism devoted to "orthodox Trinitarian faith" and opposed to "homosexual practice," (see logo above) issued a statement about unity within the  United Methodist Church during a recent conference attended by some 300 people.

Unfortunately the link to the statement on the Confessing Movement's website does not seem to work, but veteran United Methodist reporter and editor Dan Gangler has summarized the statement in a United Methodist News Service (UMNS) story entitled "Confessing Movement issues statement on unity."

Gangler summarizes the document:

It defines genuine unity "as a precious gift of the Holy Spirit,  rooted in the gospel of Jesus Christ, witnessed to in Holy Scripture, summarized in ecumenical creeds, celebrated in worship and sacraments, demonstrated in common mission, articulated in our teaching, lived out in love, and contended for by the faithful."

I consider this paragraph a beautiful statement of Christian unity, reflecting the truth that unity is a gift from God, and that it is lived out in the church's life of worship, mission,  study, and love. This is a well-crafted paragraph with which I agree totally.

The statement, unfortunately, then seems to go on the attack . Gangler says:

The document also cites "practices that contribute to disunity," including neglect of Scripture, disobedience to the church's Doctrinal Standards, claims of new sources of revelation that set aside the authority of Scripture and the tested morality of the church, and "capitulation to lifestyles that are inconsistent with Christian discipleship."

If this paragraph is directed at persons like myself who want to change the Book of Discipline to fully include people of differing sexual orientations and gender identities in the life of the church, this list of "practices" is  unfortunate, and frankly mistaken.

1. We do not neglect Scripture. Our churches do Disciple Bible study and many other Bible studies. Our preaching is based on Scripture. We love the Bible. It shapes our lives and understanding. We plunge into it deeply to discover the essential truths of revelation, including God's advocacy for the poor and marginalized, the outcast and "unclean." We cherish the biblical witness to the Spirit's movement through history toward redemption, liberation, justice, reconciliation, and inclusion over against our sinful human desires to value and include only those we consider to be like us.  Members of the Confessing Movement must be careful not to imply that they are the only ones who love the Bible or who study it and base their lives on it. Such an attitude would itself be quite divisive.

2. We do not disobey the church's doctrinal standards. Well, yes we do, but so do we all.   John Wesley's General Rules (part of our doctrinal standards) call on us to avoid evil of every kind, including: "The putting on of gold and costly apparel," and "Laying up treasure upon earth." The General Rules also call upon us to do good "by giving food to the hungry, by clothing the naked, by visiting and helping them that are sick or in prison," and "by being in every kind merciful." I assume that the Confessing Movement does not consider itself superior to the rest of the church in these things. All of us need to pay more attention to avoiding evil, doing good, and attending all the ordinances of God. It is also true that our church's doctrinal standards are subject to re-examination and re-interpretation in order to apply them appropriately to the current context in which we live.

3. I am most interested in the Confessing Movement's criticism that some are claiming "new sources of revelation" that "set aside the authority of Scripture and the tested morality of the church." Here's my question: If science or medicine provides us with new information that might influence our interpretation and application of biblical revelation and truth, would the Confessing Movement accuse us of treating medical and scientific information as "new sources of revelation"? It is true that some of us have interpreted Scripture so as not to endorse aspects of  what once was "the tested morality of the church," such as the divine right of kings, the belief that the sun revolves around the earth and that scientific inquiry which might suggest otherwise is blasphemy, the endorsement of slavery, the silencing of women in the church,  an exclusively male clergy, the authority of husbands over wives and the expectation that wives shall be submissive, the definition of Africans and African-Americans as "the descendants of Ham" who are divinely predestined to be slaves, and the absolute outlawing of divorce except in cases of adultery. This part of the Confessing Movement's statement seems to come very close to suggesting that interpretations of Scripture which disagree with its views are a sign of disunity. Such an attitude, which limits acceptable biblical inquiry to that which reaches the same conclusion it does, would seem to me to itself  risk fostering disunity.

4. Certainly we are not advocating "lifestyles that are inconsistent with Christian discipleship" nor are we capitulating to such. While we are careful not to be judgmental, the Reconciling Ministries Network, and others who share our commitments, advocate faithfulness, commitment, honesty, openness, love, respect, mutuality, compassion, integrity, and Christ-likeness. These seem to me to be qualities of a lifestyle most consistent with Christian discipleship. If members of the Confessing Movement are arguing that only people who believe like them are capable of these kinds of lifestyle qualities, this seems to me to be to fostering disunity.

Again, I think the Confessing Movement's statement of the nature of unity as "a precious gift of the Holy Spirit" is beautiful. The movement's characterizations of "signs of disunity" are pejorative and , I think,  themselves  divisive.

Comments

[Craig Moore]

Dean
Is the confessing movement the instigators of the disunity in the UMC or is it those who want to violate the Discipline? If this issue ever gets turned around and the Evangelicals become those on the wrong side of church law, will your side then be considered the ones who are bringing disunity to the church as you uphold the rulings of the General Conference?
Why are those who want to be faithful to scripture and church Discipline acused of causing disunity? It seems to me that as you point your finger toward the Confessing Movement and criticize their positions that you think is causing disunity, you should also take notice and remember that you have 4 fingers pointing toward yourself.

[Dean Snyder]

Hey Craig

You are maybe putting words into my mouth? I did not say the Confessing Movement was the source of disunity. I said one paragraph of their unity statement was beautiful, but another paragraph tended in my opinion to foster disunity. I am sure there are things that I have said that have fostered disunity as well. I hope people lwet me know when they think i am doing that.

Also, I think there is a difference between disagreement and disunity. We should explore the question of whether we can disagree about some things and still have unity in Christ.
Dean

[John Wilks]

Dean,

I will grant you that the term "neglect of the Scripture" dismisses the love folks like you have for the Bible. One of the reasons I have backed away a bit from the Confessing Movement is that while their faith and mine are very close, I feel that they often unfairly villanize the progressive camp. (Of course, their are progressive who do the same to evangelicals.)

At the same time, your use of the Bible and mine are significantly different. You (and folks like you) seem to prefer to read the Bible in light of the times you live in, your own life experiences, and the product of your own reasoning.

The traditional approach has been the opposite- to see the world around us, our own experiences, and our reasoning in the light of the Scripture.

To put it another way, the progressive usually asks "How do I understand the Scriptures given what I know about the world?"

Yet an evangelical usually asks "How do I understand the world given what I know about the Scriptures?"

Do both sides take the Scripture seriously? Yes!

Do both cherish the Bible? Yes!

But are both approaches going to lead to the same sort of faith?

No. Sadly, the answer is no.

In the end, we must realize that our drift into disunity is not really anyone's fault but the natural result of trying to keep one structure standing when it is built on two separate foundations. Eventually, when those foundations shift to adjust to the environment around them, they will pull the building in differing directions. Damage to the structure is unavoidable. And sooner or later, unless a solution is found, the whole building will be lost.

Is a split unavoidable? Yes, I think so. But not without a cost. Either one side or the other will have to back down (not likely) or we'll eventually have to accept a more relaxed form of unity.

But we cannot reasonably expect strong unity in an environment where we basically have two very distinct and sometimes incompatible forms of Christian religion being practiced- and that is essentially where we are.

[John Wilks]

arrggggg- that 2nd to last paragraph should begin "Is a split avoidable"

Oops!

And no, it's not a Freudian slip. Well, I hope not.

[Dean Snyder]

John

I find your distinction interesting. I do think I look to Scripture to try to discern how to live in the world as I experience it.

I look to Scripture for:

1. A gimpse into the heart of God. Who did our ancestors in the faith believe God was (the Bible does not have a single consistent voice on this)? How have we seen God in Christ? How can this help me discern who it is I try to pray to and live for?

2. A sense of what God is about in the scope of human history. Where have we come from, where are we going? How is the Spirit of God blowing, moving, influencing creation and history? I need to know this so I can try to discern my little place and role in the great movements of God through history and eternity.

3. Reminders. There are things I think I know --that I have been taught in church since I was a child-- but that I need to hear again and again -- mostly things aboiut forgiveness, love, kindness, mercy.

4. New discoveries. Everytime I really sit with Scripture I come upon something new. Often my heart burns within me.

5. An alterative worldview to what I see on television that keeps me from being consumed by the culture. An alternative that keeps me from being brainwashed into thinking that people are mostly important because they are consumers; that money, success, popularity, sexual desirability, and fun is what life is all about; that keeps me from thinking all that matters is this life; that keeps me from thinking more highly of myself than I ought. This is in part perspective.

6. Trustworthy principles I can live out in my situation and time.

Here's what I do not expect to find in the Bible: scientific information; medical information; writings outside of time or the situation in life in which they were written; writings unlimited by their context; unambiguity; absolute consistency; direct answers to questions the writers weren't directly asking; easy answers that will mean I don't have to struggle; writings drained of all the human limitations of the writers.

Are we diffferent in this, John?

[John]

John is unfortunately correct. We've been having 'conversations' on homosexuality and the like since 1972. There isn't really a middle ground. It's not going to appear. And eventually, even the Methodist Left will accede to the inevitable split.

Perhaps its for the best. Perhaps we would be better off splitting into two denominations in peace, rather than tear at each other hatefully for decades to come.

[Andy B.]

I think unity is a lot more about how we treat one another and a lot less about what we believe. Even splitting the United Methodist church would not destroy Christian unity, it would just destroy the clergy pension fund ;)

John Wilks,
You said, "The traditional approach has been ... to see the world around us, our own experiences, and our reasoning in the light of the Scripture." How do you first get to the light of Scripture without coming to it through your own experiences and reasoning? Everone looks at the Scripture through a particular lens, no? Are you claiming exclusive access to the objective truth of God's Word?
Rose-colored,
Andy B.

[Dean Snyder]

John the M

What issue that has divided Methodists into schisms in the past has still been an issue 50 years later? Why not keep dialoguing and struggling and staying together until we figure this out? One way or another, this will not still be an issue 50 years from now, I'd wager. (Of course, even if I'm right, I wouldn't be here to collect.)

[Keith Taylor]

Dean,
You wrote in a reply to John. Here's what I do not expect to find in the Bible: scientific information; medical information; writings outside of time or the situation in life in which they were written; writings unlimited by their context; unambiguity; absolute consistency; direct answers to questions the writers weren't directly asking; easy answers that will mean I don't have to struggle; writings drained of all the human limitations of the writers.

Most of the people that read and comment on this Blog are like yourself, trained theologians. Most of you are professional clergy. Please take no offense and I sincerely mean none, but always think that it is a little funny when arguments about the Bible not being a book of science or history, etc. are made.
I am not a trained theologian. I am a Profession Mechanical Engineer. I spent 5 1/2 years in school in a pure math and science training. Many would think that a pure engineering background would drive a person to the secular, scientific views of the world. However, I will tell you that is far from the truth. When I look a the laws of the natural universe, when I see the laws of chemistry and physics, fluid dynamics, thermodynamics and heat transfer, kinematics and the laws of motion, I see the hand of God in everyone of those equations. For me, it is impossible not to. To me, the laws of the universe support the text of the Bible, not pull it apart.

I have never read anything in the Bible that disputes what all my engineering course of study taught me about the world.

I work for a major corporation. I deal with union labor and personnel, issues of finance and profitability, I deal with multimillion dollar jobs with complex customers every day. I am not writing this to brag, but as a personal example, the Bible and the Holy Spirit are my guide on everything that I do. The Bible is my guide and governor for every issue I deal with, no matter how simple or how complex. Thus, the writings of the Bible are relevant to me in the 21 century even though they may have been written 2 or 3 or 4 thousand years ago. As a matter of fact, the Bible itself is not limited by time. For example, there are books that were written hundreds of years before Christ. They have a practical meaning and specific application to the time they were written, but they are also specific and apply to Christ. Likewise, things in specific applications then, just as easily apply today.

Let me ask a question? The Books of Daniel and the Revelation of St. John the Devine. One is 2000 years old, the other is closer to 3000. They both give prophetic insight on the world as we approach the return of the Lord. The words of Christ, himself, in his Olivet Discourse. The words of St. Paul in Timothy II. I can see these prophetic books and passages coming to pass each and every day as I turn on the TV. I know, many will say, "well every generation could say that." Well, that just isn't true. While many have been happing peacemeal for 2000 years, now is the first time in the History of the Church that All of the latter day prophecies are coming to pass at the same time. Obviously, these writings weren't written in the 21st century, but they are rapidly coming to pass. Many of their passages have been a complete mystery to the Church until the latter half of the 20th Century when the technology of the time is starting to change their meaning from symbolism to a very real, literal prophecy.

I cannot find a single subject that I have to deal with each and every day in my life that the Bible doesn't give the God's will on. Name a subject, any subject. I cannot find one.
Finally, in your original post you gave quite a few examples of historical errors that folks used the Bible to defend. The fact that men used the Bible in error to defend incorrect scientific theories, or slavery, or government, or oppression of women, etc, etc. doesn't mean the Bible is wrong, or outdated. I don't think it is at all. It means the men who read it were wrong. Well, one of the first things I every learned Sunday School was that mankind was fallen and not perfect. Thus, they use the sins of pride, envy, wrath, sloth, averice, gluttony, and lust to distort the truth and manipulate to their own advantage. That doesn't mean that we should do the same thing. I really don't want to get into the homosexuallity arguement. However, I like the example set by Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms. Just show me in the Bible anywhere where God says that He created homosexuals, where homosexuals are born that way or that it is an acceptable lifestyle, not sinful in the eyes of God, and I'll gladly change.
I'll capitulate, do a 180 in my veiws, and side with you to change the UM Discipline.

I know that your beliefs are sincere. I know that you think that the UM Disciple should be changed. I will tell you that I disagreed strongly with some stanch conservatives over the issue of whether or not a UM pastor should allow a practicing homosexual to be baptized and join the Church. It came from the Va. Conf. pastor that refused a homosexual man at the alter. You would probably be surprised to know that I think the pastor was dead wrong and should have been removed by his bishop. The man should have been allowed baptism and church membership. And the reason I came to that conclusion came from, the Bible. The same Bible that tells me that the homosexual lifestyle is a sin.

I apologize for rambling all over the place in this reply.
Thanks,
Keith

[John Stopple]

Keith,

I like what you have to say even if I disagree with some of it.

I think that if you go back and read what you wrote and then reread Dean's comments you will find that you are not that very far apart, i.e. there is unity.

The place where I might disagree with you is that we are living in the "end times." I think if you will look at your statement a little closer you will see that that is your interpretation of the correlation of Scripture and our present times.

If you take your scientific approach to this you would have to say that we are in the midst of a big experiment to see if your interpretation is correct or not. You seem to have a lot invested in the outcome of this experiment, I do not.

It seems to me that even if one believes as you do that this is the "end times," the outcome as far as the effect on ones behavior is the same as my belief (and I assume yours as well) which is that we are to love one another as Jesus has loved us. That's what you were saying when you agreed that the pastor was wrong in not accepting a gay person into his congregation.

I think that if we look at the "outcome" of our intrepretation of Scripture rather than the intrepretation itself we will find that there is a lot more unity than we ever thought possible.

[Jan Rivero]

This is for John Wilk.
Is it possible, to your way of thinking, for a progressive to also be an evangelical? I believe it is. I consider myself to be one. I daresay Jim Wallis and others would too. Those are not oppositional poles.
You make an attempt at defining these categories but your assumption is that they hold Scripture in differing light. That's an inaccurate distinction, to my way of thinking.
(Not that this is the point of the discussion, but I do believe we cannot have honest conversation if the person who uses the terms also gets to define them. Our debates are increasingly fractured because we no longer speak a common language. We first have to come to agreement on definition of all our terms).

[Keith Taylor]

John Stopple,

Thanks for your sincere reply. I will agree that we have a lot of unity with the Christian left.

I have nothing to do with the Confessing Movement of the UMC. I am a simple layman. But the point that I was trying to make is that I do believe the Bible is the ultimate authority on all issues relevant to the Christian Church and society. I don't have much invested in the "end times" prophecies I alluded to, I was just using that as an example to show that the Bible is as applicable to now as it was 2000 years ago. And, if Christ taries another 2000 years, that will still be the case. I apologize for the diversion in my reply.

Many years ago, a lot of Christians much smarter than I came up with 5 fundamentals of Christian Faith. They are, The Deity of Christ, The Virgin Birth, The Blood Atonement of Christ on the Cross, The Bodily Resurrection of Christ, Christ will return again to Earth. My personal believe is that I have Unity with all Christians who believe these. The rest of the stuff we argue about is equivalent to whether or not sprinkling is a valid form of baptism or should we baptize infants.

[the_methotaku]

IMHO, the progressive side reads Scripture through the lens of contemporary thought, and science, and through our own experiances.

The conservative side seems to read Scripture through the lens of the tradition of the church which has been handed down through the ages.

I am not yet convinced that the two approaches are incompatible- most UMCs I've been to contain people who hold to both approaches.

[John Lomperis]

Rev. Snyder:

Sorry I missed you at "Hearts on Fire." I had hoped to say "hi."

In your post, you said that
"We do not neglect Scripture. Our churches do Disciple Bible study and many other Bible studies. Our preaching is based on Scripture. We love the Bible. It shapes our lives and understanding. We plunge into it deeply to discover the essential truths of revelation...."

I'm not entirely sure who you meant by "us," but I can't help but recall some relevant features of the last month's Hearts on Fire conference organized by the Reconciling Ministries Network, with which you have identified yourself. In plenary Bible studies that she said were a combination of her own views and the contribution of her colleague Jeffrey Kuan, Rev. Dr. Karen Oliveto criticized St. Paul for exorcising a slave girl, arguing that this did not make her life better and probably made it worse, as the demon allowed her to earn money for her masters by telling fortunes. At another point in the conference, Oliveto attacked the divisive "sheeps and goats" language used by Jesus Christ himself. The bookstore for the conference sold a book by staunch Reconciling ally Joe Sprague in which he repudiates such foundational (not to mention biblical) Christian doctrines Christ's physical resurrection from the dead and his dying on the Cross for our sins. "Hearts on Fire" organizers were also selling a bumper sticker that proclaimed "Born Again the First Time," in apparent mockery of the insistence of Jesus Christ, John Wesley, and others that one must be born again.

I could list other examples, but you get the idea.

While the Reconciling movement clearly does not ignore Scripture, isn't it fair to say that they do not have nearly as high a view of it as does the Confessing Movement?

And of course the basic question still remains of: if our unity as a church is not to be based on the biblical Gospel of Jesus Christ, what is it to be based on? In all honesty, the closest thing to a solid answer that I've seen from the self-described "progressive" wing of the church is an artificial conformity on left-wing political causes.

[Chris]

John L.,

I understand your point. But I don't want to be judged by the words of every speaker at every conference I attend, and I can only assume Dean doesn't either.

[Steve Blakemore]

The issue is not simply about scripture, although that is the starting point of all authority in the Church's understanding of faith an practice. Just look at the vows of baptism, for instance.

The issue is also one of Christian Orthodox Tradition as it has reflected on the Scripture for the last 1900 years. There is a clear Christian theology on essential matters. And there is a clear commitment to the Apostolic authority of the New Testament. And there is clear Christian teaching on matters of sexuality and the poor and war, et al.

The problem lies where people say they love the Bible or the Tradition, but actually want to stand in some position of judgement over both. They always do it on the basis of some outlook or attitude that Jesus would purportedly hold. For instance, when we are told that Christ's love is inclusive of all persons, therefore, we cannot have standards of moral or sexual conduct that "exclude" (which is not apart of the discussion) folks of a particular "sexual orientation." Such reasoning, however, is a non sequitur. When people speak in that fashion, they usually put into the mind of Jesus some particular value they embrace. Christ's love is enacted in the midst of God's created order and indeed one could say that his love is an affirmation fo that created order. The resurrection is certainly the renewal of the created order, if one believes St. Paul in II Corinthians.

How might one avoid positing Jesus against the Apostolic witness (without whom we do not have the great doctrines of the faith). The only way I can think of is to realize that the Christian faith is rooted in Christ, but passed on by the Apostles, and interpreted by the Great Tradition, and received and lived by us. There are many who do not like such an approach to faith, but it is all that can save us from ourselves.

Dean asks about insights from science as potential sources of new "revelation." This is to miss the point times two. First, regarding science in the area of sexuality, there is no clear cut science on the matter. SEcond, revelation is about God "revealing" (obviously) something or God's own self to us. Dean, therefore, must understand revelation as a human quest for enlightenment rather than a gift from God. That is a particular theological starting point that is, of course, at odds with the Great Tradition of the faith. One that needs to be acknowledged as such. Only by such open acknowledgement can real dialogue go forward about UNITY in the Church. If Unity is a gift, it is established by God's revelation and not by our human quest for enlightment. So, one's theology of revelation becomes important in the dialogue about how unity can be achieved.

[Dorothy B]

For the life of me I don't understand why those that prefer a conservitive Church just dont go to one of the other Wesley related churches If any of you have been to a World Methodist Conference you have a list. Why tear apart the UMC that evolved out of the Methodist Episcopal and never left over slavery and have long family traditions as the Church grew to what it is today with deep roots. Why don't they just go to the Free Methodist Church or the Nazerene I am sure they will welcome you
I like to think we have changed in the UMC over the years just like nature has.There are rivers that are not in the same track they were years ago. We have lakes where they never exsisted and mountains that have changed their shape fron eruptions. We have animals that was not on earth years ago.God gives us a new lesson evryday of our life. Listen to the God of the ages and today and grow.

[Sonja]

I believe the split is a sign of the times. We need to stand strong for what we believe our "word of God" to say, and we can add to or twist it to agree with what ever we want it to say, we are at a fork in the road, let us take different paths. Only God knows what we face at the end of our lives. I for one believe the "Word" is the infalable word of God and should be followed as the Holy Spirit guides, we will be judged for the stand we take or don't take. I am His child,paid and bought by His blood alone. A gift not to be sold to the most out spoken or forced to lower our values.