The Authority of the Church in the World:  A United Church of Christ Perspective, Rev. Dr. Susan E. Davies
 

United Methodists Bearing Witness to the Gospel

Rev. Bruce W. Robbins
Former General Secretary, UMC General Commission on Christian Unity and Interreligious Concerns 

We have been asked to identify the ways our churches identify the shape of the Gospel and bear witness as disciples within the world. I will respond, first, by describing something of the United Methodist self-understanding of what it means to be a church. Our history shapes profoundly how the church responds to the world and where it places emphasis within its response. I will then turn to four different, structural ways that The United Methodist Church seeks to respond to the gospel call. First, we set vision and mandates at a general conference that meets every four years; second, we look to the bishops for leadership and guidance; third, we act strategically within regional and local churches, sometimes in disagreement with polity yet believing the actions to be authentic discipleship; and, finally, through consideration of the international, church structure. For all four paradigms of response, I will illustrate with some recent conflicts within the communion over the church's response to homosexuality. These considerations may give some understanding of who we are for the other members of the NCCC/USA Faith and Order Working Group. Of course, other United Methodists may give completely different perspectives that the ones I posit here! 

A Historical Perspective on our Self-Understanding

Even today, after more than two centuries, Methodists cannot be understood adequately without some perspective on the communion's beginning. We began as a renewal movement within the Church of England in the 1730s. Early Methodists, especially the Wesley brothers, resisted emphatically the creation of another "church." Persons in the Wesleyan renewal societies (later called "Methodists") were persons in Anglican parishes who experienced a special passion to preach "scriptural holiness" and to seek to reform what they believed to be church communities that had lost their holiness and passion for the gospel. From the earliest days, the societies used methods highly unusual within the Church of England, such as open-air preaching and enthusiastic, extemporaneous prayer. Of course, such abnormal lay activity caused tension and ostracism for the Methodists. However, in England, any formal separation was many years in coming since the Methodist societies did not offer sacraments and urged their members to attend the parish churches for the full range of ministries of the church. 

Within the newly forming United States, the situation was quite different. The Methodist societies grew in the years preceding the Revolutionary War. During the war, there was a dearth of church leadership, and hostilities prevented British Wesleyans from entering and working in the rebellious colonies. American Methodist leaders appealed to John Wesley to send leaders. (At the same time, the American Anglicans also needed leadership badly. Samuel Seabury had to go to Scotland in 1784 to become ordained and then return to lead Anglicans in the new country.) John Wesley consecrated and sent Francis Asbury and others to the States (thus breaking historic succession of the episcopacy) to provide superintending (or episcopal) leadership. In late 1784, because of the different circumstance of a new nation, Methodism took the form of a "church" or communion in the new country. Nearly 100 years passed before Methodists formed a church in Britain. 

This brief historical perspective is important to understand why early Methodists never gave importance to a distinct ecclesiology. Their notion of the church came from that church of which they were a part and from which they never separated for theological reasons: the Church of England. Methodists, rather, put greater emphasis upon personal piety! For them, the passion for conveying the gospel was far more important than other theological questions. Essential to the gospel in the teaching of John Wesley was the inextricable link between scripture and social holiness. From the earliest days on, the test of the authenticity of the believer lay in the work of grace within the heart and the link between that personal piety and social passion. Conjoining the two became a distinctive foundation of the Wesleyan tradition. (Many attribute the focus upon personal piety to Wesley's contact with the Moravians). These emphases created within United Methodism a church with a structure that had a deliberative, representative body for decision-making; a council of bishops for oversight; and a foundation of strong independent congregations for advocating scriptural and social holiness. 

Primary Decision-Making for United Methodists

A primary way to respond as a communion to the call of the gospel is through a focus of the vision and resources of the whole church. In 1996 The United Methodist Church recognized its mission was to "make disciples for Jesus Christ." Following that brief statement of mission, however, was a lengthy statement giving breadth to the term "discipleship" and linking the themes of personal and social piety listed above. These statements set the framework for all the polity and discipline of the church. Apart from the historical and doctrinal statements borrowed and adapted from the Church of England (and other predecessor bodies), the Book of Discipline is established by General Conference and sets the way in which the communion responds to the gospel in the world. We respond by determining the nature of our ministry, the social causes believed to be most important, and the use of resources to support the work of the church. Because of the Wesleyan heritage, it is not an accident that the mission board (called the General Board of Global Ministries) is nearly twice as large as all the other general agencies of the church put together. The general conference, in its four-year cycle, also tries to respond to emerging needs that the world faces. For example, in 1996, the denomination set aside a fairly large amount of funding for youth work (over $3 million), because of the persuasive argument of needs in that area. 

Discerning as a communion how to appropriately respond to the gospel's call in the world can be controversial. Historically, United Methodists have had several great struggles over social issues. Conflict over the church's response to the sin of slavery split the church for nearly 100 years during the 19^th century. More recently, we are seeing deep division over the church's response to gay and lesbian people. The church has debated whether or not to welcome gay/lesbian persons to be in ordained ministry (it prohibits it) and whether or not to develop and permit its clergy to celebrate same-sex unions (again, they are prohibited). The conflict over this issue in 2000 led to the arrest of persons on the floor of the general conference for the first time in the church's history. Many would say that the church has responded to the gospel mandate and to holy scripture by recognizing homosexual persons as persons of "sacred worth" but condemning homosexual practice. Others who also believe themselves faithful to the church (and the Wesleyan tradition) have resisted the majority position even through civil disobedience. They too are convinced they are responding to the call of the gospel. As a communion, we have discovered the difficulty of majority votes in a legislative session in response to theological or doctrinal issues. As is occurring in other communions and conciliar organizations, United Methodists are seeking to understand how corporately to respond to the gospel in the midst of fundamental division. 

United Methodist Response to the Gospel Call through Episcopal and Agency Leadership

The way in which the denomination formed has significantly affected its manner of responding to the gospel. In many churches, the bishops hold a vital role as the teaching authority of the communion. In contrast, United Methodists often wonder about the influence and visibility of Anglican or Roman Catholic bishops in comparison to our own. However, our understanding of the church does not cause us to see bishops in any ontological sense beyond their roles as "superintendents." In fact, recognition that our bishops also carry responsibility for the "unity of the church," teaching, and upholding church doctrine was only added to our Book of Discipline in 1992, adopting language taken from The COCU Consensus of the Consultation on Church Union. (They certainly had responsibility for clergy and their education, which was another form of teaching authority.) Furthermore, the church does not recognize bishops as a separate "order" of ministry. They are elders with special responsibilities and a unique call to the church. The teaching role and the contextualization of the scriptural mandates for the denomination is usually considered the responsibility of the general conference. 

Even while this perspective is true, there is still strong desire by many United Methodists for teaching and spiritual leadership to come from somewhere other than general conference. When the conference only meets for two weeks every four years (with 1000 delegates present) it is difficult to reflect adequately about the church's doctrine and the contextualization of the scripture. The bishops are trusted by many, and they are representative of the diversity of the church. Can they provide leadership for us in responding to the ways in which the gospel calls us? 

At several different points the bishops have taken on the responsibility of leading the church in its teaching. (They do address the general conference at the beginning of each conference's sessions. This is a dramatic moment and a tradition of the general conference that has been in place since 1808.) In the mid-1980s the bishops sought to respond to the crisis of nuclear weapons. After numerous hearings, they produced a document and pastoral letter, both called "In Defense of Creation." It was a remarkable time where the collective teaching of the bishops made a large impact upon the denomination. In 1996 another initiative was launched, called "The Bishops Initiative on Children and Poverty." It seeks to focus the resources of the church and will be in effect until 2004. During the last few years, the bishops have also tried to address the conflicts over homosexuality. The divisions within the Council of Bishops were particularly evident to the denomination when fifteen bishops signed a statement in protest to the formal teaching of the church established by the general conference. There is still tension over the conflicting positions taken on the issue. The bishops have tried to issue pastoral letters on the subject, but the letters reflect the divisions within the council itself Many ask whether bishops should be able to advocate for positions contrary to those of the church. 

Apart from the Council of Bishops, other agencies of the church have also sought to provide leadership and act as teachers for the wider church. Agencies receive their mandates from the general conference and have elected representatives of the church to set their policies. The agency that I work with, the General Commission on Christian Unity and Interreligious Concerns, has recently expanded its role to advocate for Christian Unity, not only between Christian churches but within the communion as well. We have come to realize that some of the greatest divisions between Christians exist among us as well as between us. The two issues of most focus are racism and homosexuality. To begin in new ways to address the sin of racism, the commission organized an act of repentance at the general conference for the racism of the predominately white United Methodist Church against the African-Americans who left the denomination for reasons of race, and for those African-Americans who stayed within The United Methodist Church and also suffered from racism. The agency has sought to develop resources to be used by local churches and annual conferences so that these actions are within local communities as well as within the wider church. 

The attempts to address divisions over homosexuality have also been a particular challenge for the agency concerned with Christian unity. What does it mean to The United Methodist Church to be a communion deeply divided over the issue of homosexuality? The debate involves questions of ecclesiology, scriptural hermeneutics, and the nature of revelation. Here are some steps the commission has taken. It has 

? Developed a formal dialogue among church leaders chosen carefully in regard to their perceived theological positions in the church: half "more liberal" and half "more conservative";

? Developed a consensus statement by the dialogue group as a model to use throughout the connection;

? Initiated a consultation and developed a video with testimonies of six witnesses all of whom either left the denomination or violated its discipline, three because the church's stand on homosexuality was perceived to be too conservative and three because it was perceived to be too liberal;

? Developed regional and local workshops for dialogue with guidelines for civility and careful group process encouraging respectful conversation. 

As a result of these efforts, the general conference has asked the commission to lead the denomination in dialogue into the future. 

United Methodist Responses to the Gospel from Regional and Local Church Bodies

Rather than try to treat this huge topic extensively, I will posit several considerations that seem important in understanding The United Methodist Church today. First, our history has caused us to place great emphasis upon the link of personal piety and social action within the congregational, worshipping community. Second, because of a sense of "connectionalism", the communion has been effective by recognizing and living out the perceived "connection" between Methodists in different levels of the church institution. The connection creates a sense of accountability one-to-another and the resulting polity makes it very difficult for congregations to leave the denomination for any sort of reason. Today's divisions over homosexuality are testing dramatically the strength of the connection. Finally, because of the historical lack of attention to a denominational ecclesiology and the pressures operating upon the church, the polity is often the battleground for theological conflict. For example, even though the highest legislative body has deliberated and decided on the issue of homosexuality, the conflict is still very present within the denomination and is not alleviated by the withdrawal from the communion of dissenting congregations. The churches are bound together even though they have contrary views; hence, the conflict among us. The differing discernment of the call of the gospel is leading in dramatically different directions. For instance, today there are lay members who are placing charges against their clergy for being gay or lesbian, or for conducting same-sex unions. In other cases, there are churches voting to authorize laypersons to conduct same-sex unions, but to hold them outside the church premises. These are ways to avoid charges being brought against the clergy. It is important to note that all the participants are United Methodists believing that they are acting in response to the gospel call. 

Global Pressures affecting United Methodist Ecclesiology

How we understand ourselves globally/internationally as United Methodists is another place of current tension that is affected by the debate on homosexuality. Apart from the particular issue, we have studied for years the appropriate relationship between United Methodists in other parts of the world and those in the United States. Today, nearly 15% of the total UMC membership lives in areas that were formally UMC mission locations (Africa, Philippines and Europe). The results of the discussion have resulted in a church that is organizationally one but which has tensions resulting from the domination of the United States and of English as a language. Proposals have been underway to restructure the denomination to make it more equitable. It is complicated by the fact that nearly the entirety of the financial base is in the United States. In 2000 the General Conference instructed yet another group to make recommendations to General Conference in 2004. 

The debate over our international relationships has been complicated by attitudes towards homosexuality. As is also true in the Anglican Communion, theological and political alliances have formed over homosexuality and other social issues. Many United Methodists in the U.S. wish to have discussion and deliberation of the issue without the pressure of overseas opinions. Should not the United Methodists in the U.S. be able to make their own decisions on these issues? In fact, the United Methodists in other countries do have far more independence from the general church position on social issues than do U.S. United Methodists. We have not yet come to common ecclesiological understandings of the relationship between United Methodists, Methodists in other countries, and also with our ecumenical colleagues. Homosexuality complicates the discussion as inter-confessional alliances form around this church-dividing issue.