Theology and praxis
What is the importance of members of a denomination to adhere to the explicit theological positions of a denomination? Should a United Methodist be a Wesleyan? Should a Presbyterian (USA) be a Calvinist? Should a Catholic be a Thomist? Should an Episcopalian be a Hookerite or an Andrewesian? etc.?
The sub question of this is what is the minimum catichetical understanding for church members which you would be satisfied in as a pastor?
The sub question of this is what is the minimum catichetical understanding for church members which you would be satisfied in as a pastor?
posted by Unknown at 4:21 PM
9 Comments:
Wilson,
Great question. I've been thinking a lot about that lately being that I'm in the middle of confirmation teaching.
I liked how Dr. Phillips highlighted the apostolic tradition which Father Ben summarized as:
1. Belong
2. Behave
3. Believe.
Thus, our confirmation this time around is organized around:
1. Join confirmation
2. Learn about the spiritual disciplines
3. Learn about the doctrines.
In the future I think I'd like to run membership class and confirmation as a covenant group to begin with. We'd meet for six to eight weeks asking one another how things went this past week with living out the faith (probably use Richard Foster's Spiritual Formation Group workbook). Then after that there'd be some teaching on doctrine.
None of this is to say that doctrine isn't important. But rather, I think it comes after living the faith.
As for deciding who is in and who is out, we've handled it this way: we're going to tell you what we believe. In the end, its going to have to be your decision about whether you believe it or not (they do have to make some basic public statements according to the UMH and BOW).
Wilson, I'm sure you have another perspective. I look forward to it.
Peace,
Tom
P.S. What are you up to these days?
This will come as a surprise given our discussions, but, with regard to our flock, I don't put a lot of weight on the "explicit theological positions of a denomination," especially for laity. I find it much more helpful to be alert for evidence that we are manifesting the three marks of the Church (Newbiginian Wainwrightish) of liturgia, diakonia, and kerygma in our common life together.
The minimum? I like the summary of Aquinas by various people, most recently Sam Wells: God wills to be friends with us, and has given us all that we need to do that.
I need to add a note that I have grown wary of "orthodoxy" movements as a result of our study of history and my experience in Anglicanism, observing its effects both in TEC and the CoE. And Milbank's writing on Augustine's De Musica around p. 410 in TST has influenced me greatly, making me think that our various forays that challenge orthodoxy somehow are often providence, driving us towards the richness that God intends for us. So humility and an openness to the Spirit is just as important as orthodoxy.
I'm sure this will piss off the more academic theologians among us, but I believe that no denomination is right or has a corner on the truth. Methodist, Presbyterian, whatever, are all flawed in their own little ways.
Love God, Love people, Make Disciples. So, Wilson, Mu. (un-ask the question.) For our job isn't to make better methodists, or catholics or (God forbid) baptists. But rather to make christians; which as it turns out is much harder.
As far as defining who's part of the club... well fsck that. It's a waste of time and a sin. Ain't no way we're gonna get it right. And there's every chance we'll fsck it up and hurt people. Each of us begins and ends our day in sin, and draws each breath in grace. Drawing lines to define the in and out of salvation inevitably draws us outside the lines. Instead of defining a subset (x) of people who are saved and a subset of (y) who are not saved; (where X union Y = superset people.) we should look at the vectors of activity. Belief must result in action. Our actions therefore reflect our beliefs. Do our actions, "plotted" over time reflect the vectors of Christ's actions? Or do they represent the vectors of Mammon? The answer is inevitably both, depending on the moment. The question is what do the vectoral sums of our actions represent?
Of course the objection will be: how do we define what actions are or are not reflective of Christ's actions... fair enough, but we need to resist the urge to try and codify lists of acceptable and unacceptable behaviors. It is easy enough to compassionately and charitably adjudicate situations, as a community, to identify right and wrong.
That's fscking well said, Kevin. Thanks!
Being generally a moderating theologian (that is to say that I tend to argue against the main stream for fear of losing something important), I'm going to have to make a case for the importance of doctrine in this particular thread of discussion. I'd like to base my case primarily on an ecclesiological argument, that is to say submission to the ecclesiological authority. In the case of United Methodists, those folks who join our church must do so according to our discipline by agreeing to some basic doctrinal statements. They are in the United Methodist Hymnal on page 34-35 for baptismal candidates (there are several Baptismal Covenants but they all include some variation on these questions). The include things like:
"Do you renounce the spiritual forces of wickedness..."
"Do you confess Jesus Christ as your Savior..."
"Do you believe in God the Father?" (followed by a response of the Apostles' Creed).
Thus, for a person to have any integrity within their baptism and the commitments they are making, they must have some theological understanding and agreement of these basic doctrinal issues. And since I would be the primary person as the pastor who is teaching them what these things mean, how can I not teach them in a "Wesleyan" way? For that is how I have been taught to see and understand them?
They are also asked, "Will you be loyal to the United Methodist Church..." This takes this commitment a step further and I think lead us into a Wesleyan understanding of faith and practice.
Now, you may not agree with any of these doctrinal statements, but if you're a United Methodist pastor, I think you're agreeing to submit to this until you convince the church otherwise (and I see no problem in actively seeking to change the church while submitting to the church's authority).
So I'm attempting to argue for the importance of doctrine in general and Wesleyan doctrine in particular in this unique context.
@tom
Tom, when you are ordained as a pastor, regardless of the denominational strings, you are ordained to serve God. Not a bishop. Base your argument on the Invisible church of God, not the visible church of hubris.
Because you are ordained to serve God, your calling is not to make methodists by creedal statements --even baptismal statements-- After all, the sacramental nature of baptism relies on God, not human work. Creeds are a place to start, not a line to divide. What does it say that we ask people to be loyal to the united methodist church, instead of *the* Church. Esp. as a church professing a desire for the unification of the Church.
While the basic doctrines of the church for there to be integrity in chosen baptism, these doctrines need not, and should not be specific to any given denomination. The Catechism of the Church should be universal to *the Church* Polluting that with the wisdom, however true, of a particular denomination, risks the breeding of denominational supercessionism that argues one denomination has a corner on the truth. As in, if you're not baptist you're doomed. Or, if you were not baptized a certain way, it doesn't count...
Dear Kevin,
I see you point and in many ways agree with it wholeheartedly. Yet, I think the strength with which it is being made has other errors. One of those errors is the assumption that I can decide what "for God" means without a community that helps me to discern what "for God" means. The natural outcome of this way of thinking is a splintered church with everyone deciding what "for God" means for him/herself. Its the hubris of the Protestant reformation to think that its me and my Bible and God and I don't need y'all to know what it means. So yes, I think the UMC has several problems but no, I won't make the same mistake it often makes by choosing to go it alone. Thus, I submit to the community even if I disagree with the community (while simultaneously trying to change the community from within).
I've recently been given a book by a friend of mine who edited it: Michael Ward. Ward was the chaplain the past three years at Peterhouse, Cambridge University. It's titled "Heresies and How to Avoid Them." Each chapter is by a different person and most were part of a semester long sermon series on heresies at Peterhouse Chapel. Also, Hauerwas writes the foreword. I've only read Ward's chapter on Theopaschitism, Hauerwas' foreword, and the introduction by the other co-editor, Ben Quash. I'm liking what I'm reading a lot so far. I highly recommend it. Ward's exposition on Theopaschitism was quite enlightening for one who has been generally tending toward Theopaschitism (or at least not understanding what's at stake here)...thus, a chapter that convinces you when you knew going into it that you probably wouldn't agree with it is always a great read. I particularly appreciate the generous approach of the book toward those who are thus called "heretics." Here's a couple of quotes from the intro: "Heresies (and heretics) aren't all bad...Many heresies were sincerely proffered as attempts to clarify the belief of the Church and inform the lives of believers...We can afford to listen to them generously in many cases." I think this might make a good accessible book for a small group study in a church (though I do admit I haven't yet read it all).
Post a Comment
<< Home