The Church has Boundaries which are Theological, Ethical and Historic

One of the more hopeful developments in the larger wesleyan movement of our day has been the emergence of the Global Methodist Church. This new denomination has the opportunity to bring fresh winds of renewal to the wesleyan movement throughout the world. While the recovery of distinctive wesleyan theology is vital, probably the greatest blessing has been the recovery of historic Christian orthodoxy among the “people called Methodists.” (Since orthodox, or what Wesley called “scriptural Christianity,” is the only proper foundation to wesleyan theology). We, of course, must acknowledge the faithfulness of the Wesleyan Church, the Free Methodist, Salvation Army, among others in our larger movement who have largely adhered to orthodoxy. But all of these smaller denominations lived under the shadow of the United Methodist Church, which was the largest wesleyan movement in N. America. Those of us who once belonged to the UMC were constantly fighting a seemingly endless stream of departures from historic orthodoxy. The fight over the normalization of same-sex marriage and gender reassignment may have been the “straw that broke the camel’s back” and the issue that made all the headlines, but those of us who were actually in the UMC for decades knew that this was just the latest departure on so many historic doctrines, including Christology, eternal judgment and biblical authority, to name a few. I had lived through the “Reimaging Conference in the early 1990’s which chanted “bless Sophia” as well as the 2003 acquittal of UMC Bishop Joseph Sprague who denied the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. This has been a long struggle which began decades ago. Those of us who remained fully committed to the historic faith within the UMC struggled in the hope that the UMC might be renewed. There were moments when we thought that we might be the one mainline outlier, and we could bring our denomination back from the brink, but, in the end, it was not possible. We lasted longer than the other so-called “mainline” denominations only because our connectional system included the stalwart voices of the African delegates who demonstrated remarkable boldness and courage. But, in the end, once the Discipline began to be openly defied, and Rev. Tom Berlin (now Bishop in the UMC) referred to the Traditionalist Plan as a “virus” which must be exterminated from the church, the only option was to depart and start a new denomination.
At the dawn of this new day, it will be important to remember what true “inclusivism” is. Under the UMC the word “inclusion” meant accommodating a myriad of voices which were clearly outside the boundaries of historic faith (remember the Connectional Table?). Views clearly outside of orthodoxy were called “perspectives” which needed to be accommodated, rather than false teachings to be denounced. But, true Christian inclusion must be rooted in the power of the gospel which unites men and women from every tribe, nation and tongue under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, the authority of Scripture, and the historic, apostolic faith which has been faithfully passed down.
Perhaps it is a good time to remember the difference between a “perspective” and a “position” as it relates to theological matters. Today, the word “perspective” has slowly advanced over the linguistic landscape until almost everything in Christianity is referred to regularly as a “perspective.” The word is often used to mean something equivalent to “this is just my personal opinion.” However, we must remember that there are host of matters where the church has historically spoken with a single voice. It is not just “your opinion” – it is the proclaimed and passed down Apostolic gospel which we are grateful recipeients.  The church should never, for example, accept a situation where one wing of the church believes that Jesus Christ historically rose bodily from the grave, while another wing of the church believes that he merely rose symbolically in the preaching of the Apostles. The church should never accept such differing “perspectives” on the resurrection of Jesus Christ. On the contrary, the church has a position regarding the Resurrection; namely, Jesus of Nazareth bodily rose from the dead. Period. This is not a point of discussion. There are many things in this category such as the Christian prohibition against lying, the virgin birth of Jesus, the deity of the Holy Spirit, and, yes, the definition of marriage. On these things the church has spoken with a single voice. UMC Bishop Ken Carter once stated that we should “adapt our scriptures from what they originally stated and meant.” But, that is not a statement consistent with historic orthodoxy.
The newly emerging Global Methodist Church must be vigilant because there will always be a long line of clever people who rise up and challenge core doctrines of the Christian faith. They inevitably create a big stir, and they sell a lot of books. Our mind quickly goes to such books as Dan Brown’s The DaVinci Code, John Spong’s Why Christianity Must Change, or the more recent book by Richard and Christopher Hays, The Widening of God’s Mercy. When books like these appear and become best sellers, a whole sector of Christians get weak at the knees and starts telling the church that we should be ashamed of ourselves for believing this or that historic doctrine. We are told that we are “on the wrong side of history” and we should “get with the times.” We are, in particular, reminded that young people will never believe historic Christian doctrines, so the church had better adapt to the future realities now, or the church will go the way of the Dodo bird. Of course, these challenges always blow over. They raise their ugly head for a season, but the glorious truth of the gospel has this habit of reasserting its power and glory into a broken world. Certain denominations may latch onto the latest version of the “gospel of John Spong” and feel so good that they have become “relevant,” but, within a few generations that church will inevitably disappear, and new, more vibrant expressions of the gospel will re-emerge in other sectors and tens of thousands will hear the gospel afresh and the gospel will be renewed once again. It is never our job to “make the gospel relevant.” Rather, it is our job to make ourselves relevant to the gospel!
We are now in the midst of a half dozen or more new “waves” which are washing over the church. We are, of course, told that our differing views are merely matters of “perspective.” So, they argue, “let’s just agree to disagree.” We should make sure that we are on “the right side of history” and recast a gospel which is acceptable to Gen Z, and so forth. We have heard this song so many times, even if the tune is slightly different each go around. However, this is a category error. We cannot pretend that an historic Christian “position” has somehow become a mere personal “perspective.” We live in a day when, in the name of inclusion and diversity, everyone is eager to make sure no one’s views are excluded. But, the church of Jesus Christ has boundaries which are ethical, confessional and historic. May we remember this, even in the midst of these challenging times.

Feedback

Please fill out the form below if you would like to provide feedback to Dr. Tennent concerning this blog entry.