Our Historical Context

Historically speaking, the Methodist tradition has been plagued by trying to contain the theological problem of how to hold Calvinists (followers of John Calvin) like George Whitefield and Arminians (followers of Jacob Arminius) like John Wesley.  Charles Wesley tried to gloss over the differences by using language and frames of reference from both in his hymns.  But it did not resolve John’s and George’s disagreements over theology.  So Whitefield began his exile (my term) of preaching in America and occasionally in the British Isles.  Though George died in the colonies, he arranged for John to preach his funeral sermon in England.

The same differences in theology plague us today.  I have put together a more expansive statement on this in my personal blog at http://jerryeckert.blogspot.com. 

The evangelical fervor which led to the missionary movements in the 18^th and 19^th centuries and disrupted the settled denominations in Europe and North America (the main complaint was that the religious life and practice of the settled churches was not really Christian as far as the Calvinists were concerned).  The Calvinists focused on conversion (being saved from sin) while most other churches emphasized sanctification (becoming more and more like Christ).  The Calvinists tend toward believing in inerrancy of the Bible and the rest include other sources of revelation such as reason, experience, and tradition.  

In America, United Methodism has tried to hold Arminianism and Calvinism together.  There are deep pockets of both, hence there are large swaths of Arminian-type United Methodists, largely in the north and west and Calvinist-type United Methodists largely in the south.  In world wide United Methodism, Arminianism prevails in Western Europe and Calvinism tends to influence the mission areas (former colonial areas to Europe) in most of Africa and Asia.

Since 1972, the Calvinists in America serving as United Methodists have taken as their flag the fight against homosexuality.  Why that instead of abortion (which was carefully resolved in the 1960s in our Social Principals) or divorce (also resolved back then) or racism (on paper we’re good), is because it was controversial for the first time in the 1960s when a popular Baltimore pastor came out of the closet, throwing the denomination as a whole into an uproar, and then having a civil court stop the denomination from kicking him out.  

Homosexuality was a non-issue up to that point.  There was little real data, experience, or tradition in the church at the time so the Calvinists took the new use of the term “homosexual” as the Revised Standard Version translation of the words in their original language used instead of the term “pedophile” and raised that flag to assert their response to the controversy.  

While every nation, every culture, has among its people those who are homosexual, not all societies have had a niche for them.  The Calvinists were thrilled when an African bishop addressed General Conference in the 1990s saying the Church must deal with the problem of homosexuality.

I take this much space to remind you, dear reader, that the Arminians among us feel their tradition has been violated by the Calvinists and the Calvinists think they are the bearers of traditional Christianity and each side has lots of support and a long history in the church as it stands today, though neither’s true history extends back before 1500 A. D.  In fact, in our denominational history, until 60 years ago, neither tradition really bothered with concerns about homosexuality.  It is a mostly modern issue in the lifetime of around half of UMC members worldwide.

But it is our problem and this commentary needs to address the current manifestation of this wedge issue in the remaining decisions of the Council from February and April of 2019.

And global warming is dangerously upon us while we squabble . . . .

JCD 1375

www.umc.org/decisions/79285

The Bishops Strike Early

The Council’s Fall 2018 session pretty much shot down most of the Calvinists’ (most would say “traditionalists” but I like my terms of Arminian and Calvinist better since both have long traditions in the UMC)  petitions in JCD 1366.  There are very gifted church law people in the Calvinists’ group and they went to work to try to work around what the Council pointed out were unconstitutional in their plan.  The Council of Bishops (hereinafter the Bishops) met just before GC2019 and requested declaratory decisions related to some of the Calvinists’ revised petitions.  This request dealt with two elements of that plan, streamlining the process for dealing with allegations related to homosexuals and setting up an international tribunal for homosexuality allegations against bishops under the Council of Bishops.

The  Calvinists saw a pattern in how allegations were handled over the last couple quadrennia.  Those conferences and jurisdictions where the Arminians predominated, the allegations tended to be dropped somewhere between the supervisory response to a written complaint from a Calvinist and a trial.  

So one petition to the GC2019 cut out practically everything from the complaint to the trial at the conference level and tried to establish a special committee on investigation on the General Conference level..  The Council jumped on that one, saying it removed the right of the annual conference to process the complaint, a violation of the constitution (Par. 33).

The other petition wanted to set up an international judicial committee of bishops under the Bishops in an attempt to get away from how Arminian jurisdictions could slow walk or drop homosexuality-related complaints.

The Council clobbered that petition because the constitution (Par. 50) gives accountability to the jurisdictions where the bishops are elected.

That ruling was shared with GC2019.  The related petitions were dropped.

Was the Council supporting the Arminians?  I do not think so.  The constitution is clear on both counts.  This was a by-the-book decision.

Concluding Thoughts on the Spring 2019 Sessions

I have characterized the split in our denomination as between two theologies, Calvinism and Arminianism.  Others have used phrases like Modernists v. Literalists, liberals v. conservatives, One Churchers v. Traditionalists.  I have found these inadequate because they point only to some of the characteristics of the two sides.  And in the case of the term “traditionalists,” I’m an Arminian traditionalist and my friends on the other side are Calvinist traditionalists and we have lived and served God side by side since the time of John Wesley.  But let me offer the one key trait among the differences that distinguishes the two theologies for you to ponder:  Arminians are necessarily self-critical and Calvinists are not.  And that makes all the difference.

Ponder that.

To summarize these two sessions of the Council, it is clear to me that the Council settled everything by careful adherence to law, both precedent and written law.  They were, as I said several times, “by-the-book.”  As much as people may have been unsatisfied with the overall results, no matter what their respective viewpoints, the high court did its job.  It took its pieces of the problem and resolved them in a coherent way (new terminology aside!) that showed its grounds as it went.  That is a terribly important responsibility in the time of crisis.

The most common myth about courts is that they are concrete and steel edifices that use vague and clunky processes to tell people what to do or to tell people who is right or wrong.

Let me demythologize that for you (my seminary advisor was a Bultmann scholar).  Courts are a form of conflict resolution using techniques intended to slow down and separate out the elements of a conflict so that the involved parties can have a safe and organized way to present their respective arguments and in turn, have an arbitrator (judge or jury – a group of arbitrators) compare all the facts and opinions with the rules (or laws or regulations) and provide an independent decision unbiased toward all of the parties.

Courts are far better than duels or wars or bigger weaponry to resolve conflicts.  Courts are far better than vigilantes or KKKs or hip-slung six-shooters to handle personal problems.  They keep “an eye for an eye” from turning their society into a bunch of blind people.  (I think Mark Twain first said something like that.)

Courts work best when they are respected as having the last word over the conflicted parties.

Courts work best when they have a body of rules (law, regulations) that have been developed in a reasonable way by the whole society (or its representatives), rules open to review and refinement or change as experience shows is in the best interests of the society.

Courts work best when they can show for all to see which of the laws they are depending on to support their decisions.

Courts work best when they pay attention to precedents set by their predecessors, point out openly which they are citing, and only deviate from those precedents if the experience of the society warrants it.

Courts work best when they are consistent and apply the laws even-handedly.

Courts work best when they do not answer questions they are not asked.

You can have whatever opinion about my degree of even-handedness but I hope you share my opinion that the Judicial Council did its job as our high court.  

The Way Forward Commission, the Council of Bishops, the Wesleyan Covenant and Good News, MFSA, Church and Society, and all the others have worked for the past decade and more on these issues and the scary prospect of a schism.  They dumped all that in the lap of the Council who systematically cleared up some things that were within their jurisdiction and gave hope that, by following the Discipline and its constitution, we and they can better define our future, hopefully together.

Now, if the Council and some of the rest of us can get people to stop asking for a “request for a judicial ruling” and learn how to use questions of law and requests for declaratory decisions properly, that would sure be great.

And find ways to keep bishops from straying from their lanes . . . .