Series Overview
In Wesleyan theology, there’s an emphasis on both orthodoxy (right thinking) and orthopraxy (right practices). The newest umbrella caucus group in The United Methodist Church appears to be, by their beliefs, a version of orthodoxy, but controversy emerges when we look into their practices. By examining their literature, 2016 inaugural event presentations, and the makeup of their leadership, we can better understand that while their beliefs may be biblically-grounded, their practices are more deeply shaped by these negative trends in American culture:
- 01: Partisanship
- 02: Anti-Institutionalism
- 03: Revisionist Orthodoxy
Creeping Orthodoxy…
All possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. (Vincent of Lérins, 5th century)
Christianity has wrestled for millennia about this question: “what’s the least someone has to believe to be a Christian?” Defining the boundaries of Christian belief has taken place since biblical times where New Testament writers carved out what to believe about Jesus.
Generally, historical and contemporary evangelical Christians have agreed upon the following three tiers of belief in their missionary work:
- Basic Christian beliefs are found in Scripture. The sufficiency of Scripture for salvation is reflected in many Christian traditions, including United Methodism. Evangelists wouldn’t hand out Bibles alone if this were not the case. Most versions of the Sinner’s Prayer reflect only explicit Biblical beliefs.
- “Orthodox” Christian beliefs include #1 and add the beliefs expressed in the Creeds and the Ecumenical Councils.The three main Creeds were solidified 300-500 years after Jesus Christ, with some tweaks since then. Seven Ecumenical Councils over a 750 year span after Jesus Christ came to (some) consensus on doctrines supported by Scripture but not clear within it.
- Other Christian beliefs are adiaphora: “agree to disagree” social and theological beliefs that segment out different Christian traditions, but are not critical to individual or collective salvation.
The sharpest line is between #2 and #3, with very clear definitions outlined in the Creeds and Councils weighed against the contextual and cultural considerations.
At least, it used to be the sharpest line.
…Creeping to the Culture Wars
The problem of today is that evangelical movements are creeping beyond the parameters of #2 to include social issues far beyond the scope of the Councils and the Creeds–and naming that as “orthodoxy.”
The best example of this creeping orthodoxy is when the President of Asbury Theological Seminary wrote about conflict between progressives and conservatives in christian traditions:
[These] two groups should never be called “conservative” and “progressive” and they should never be viewed as equivalent groups. What we actually have is a group (however imperfectly) which is committed to historic Christianity. The second group (however imperfectly) is committed to a re-imagined church. One, however flawed, is committed to the recovery and defense of historic Christian orthodoxy. The other, however nice and erudite, has not demonstrated a robust commitment to historic Christian orthodoxy. Thus, we actually have two groups; one orthodox and one heterodox.
Since progressives and conservatives aren’t defining themselves by differing beliefs of the Trinity or Creedal affirmations, the distinguishing point (for President Tennent) is beliefs on social issues. His Revised Orthodoxy thus adds social beliefs alongside the previous affirmations–one cannot be orthodox and affirm LGBT inclusion, according to Tennent.
The problem is that the Councils and Creeds don’t make any statements about human sexuality or women’s ordination or other cultural hot spots of today. Even if you throw in the whole of the Patristics and Church Fathers, one only finds a handful of statements related to homosexuality, and yet “orthodoxy” is being claimed, by Tennent and others, to include beliefs on these hot-button social issues. This phenomenon is outlined succinctly by Roger E. Olson in his post “Orthodoxy and Fundamentalism.”
Today, “orthodoxy” has creeped outside of its long-held container beyond its proper scope to include “orthodox” folks’ particular beliefs on social issues.
…Creeping to Stain Rather than Define
As we see, when we add social issues to orthodoxy, we begin to weaponize Category #3: “Other Christian beliefs.” The technical terms are that Christian beliefs are no longer adiaphora but rather deemed to be anathema.
- Adiaphora beliefs are “agree to disagree” concepts. Methodists baptize babies, Baptists don’t. Seventh-Day Adventists worship on Saturdays, but Presbyterians don’t. These are important beliefs but they are not consequential to salvation.
- Anathema beliefs are millstones that cast people into hell. If you hold these beliefs, then your salvation is in question.
We see this as people who believe in LGBT equality are not viewed as adiaphora (merely holding differing beliefs) but actually anathema as they are putting their salvation at risk for holding such social beliefs. I’m not agreeing with the sentiment, but as culture embraces LGBT equality, the pushback in Christian circles is to exclude those who hold those beliefs.
Today, revisionist orthodoxy takes what previously has been seen as adiaphora and stains it as anathema in order to cast people out of Christian conversations or bookstores.
![By Andrewrabbott (Own work) [CC BY-SA 4.0], via Wikimedia Commons](https://aws.hackingchristianity.net/wp-content/files/john-wesley-stainedglass-cc-wikimedia.jpg)
WCA Embrace of Creeping Orthodoxy
The Wesleyan Covenant Association, influenced by other contemporary reactionary movements, has fully embraced this narrative of creeping orthodoxy by elevating LGBTQ exclusion to the level of catechetical profession.
Over and over, by supporters and Leadership Council members, the WCA is propped up as merely upholding historic Christian beliefs which are named to be “orthodoxy.” Their belief section, assent to which along with $100/year is the requirement for membership, names their beliefs in Scripture, the Creeds, the Councils, and beliefs on particular social issues, including this one:
We believe that marriage is the uniting of one man and one woman in a single, exclusive covenant.
The “historic, biblical, Apostolic Faith” claimed by the WCA is now no longer found only in Sola Scriptura, or in the Creeds, the Councils, the Early Church Fathers, or even in John Wesley himself. Rather, it firmly includes cultural prohibitions against same-gender marriage and requires that LGBTQ persons must divorce their spouses and become celibate to become clergy.
We truly are in an odd irony of President Tennent’s words from two years ago:
We are called to “orthodoxy.” This term refers to what is “true” or “straight” or “right.”…Words can’t just mean what we want them to mean.
Indeed.
Back to the Container?
The Wesleyan Covenant Association is actually now behind the times of Evangelical movements. A friend at a church planting organization, reflecting on prominent evangelical churches like GracePointe embracing LGBTQ inclusion, wrote to me:
In the new church start world, we’re certainly not seeing excluding women or LGBTQ people in leadership as growth strategies. This may have been true of a previous generation of new churches, but many of the fastest growing new churches that focus on young adults are very open. Even to the point that a “bait-and-switch” trend is growing in those new churches that come from anti-LGBTQ traditions.
For now, the room at the WCA inaugural event was full of middle-aged and senior white men who approve of excluding LGBTQ persons from full participation in the life of the church. But growing and prominent young and Gen-X evangelical churches outside our Methodist bubble are reaching LGBTQ-friendly Evangelicals and moderates and new Christians in ways that Creeping Orthodoxy restrict us from.
My hope is that we go back to the three categories and allow adiaphora to be adiaphora, and that orthodoxy can go back to being theological affirmations rather than cultural ones to better include the diversity of the Church Universal at the table.
I just hope that the stains left behind by this creeping orthodoxy wash out.
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
Thanks for reading, commenting, and your shares on social media.
Some previous writings on the Creeping Orthodoxy Problem:
Thank you Jeremy for explaining tthese theological issues for the laymen and women.
Thanks for your ongoing interest in the work and witness of the Wesleyan Covenant Association. Like the UMC’s stance on human sexuality, WCA’s position is not contained in our Doctrinal Standards. It is included in the Statement of Moral Principles (as the UMC’s positions are contained in the Social Principles and elsewhere.) There are many, many facets of Christian life that are not part of your first two categories and are not necessary for salvation. They do, however, directly relate to how the Scriptures are faithfully read, interpreted, and lived in our community. This is why, in ordination, there are two levels of examination: One for assuring doctrinal alignment and another for agreeing to our particular brand of church discipline and polity.
Our UMC connectional life includes church structures, positions on social issues, and chargeable offenses for clergy. Just because these are not necessary for salvation does not mean they are not important or enforceable. None of us want to waste time enforcing our particular brand of Christianity upon the unwilling. That is why we examine our clergy to make sure they are willingly aligned. We ask questions like the ones pasted below.
You seem to charge WCA with making a non-essential… essential. Every organization has norms, expectations, and consequences. The UMC is in crisis now because some people have changed their minds not only on their personal agreement with our positions but also their willingness to accept the discernment processes of the larger body. Several annual conferences have written their own ordination standards in direct conflict with those of the UMC.
Here are those promises we make at ordination… not essential to salvation but an essential covenant for those who want to become United Methodist clergy:
Have you studied the doctrines of The United Methodist Church?
I have studied them
After full examination,
do you believe that our doctrines are in harmony
with the Holy Scriptures?
I believe that they are.
Will you preach and maintain them?
To the best of my ability, I will.
Have you studied our form of church discipline and polity?
I have.
Do you approve our church government and polity?
I do so approve.
Will you support and maintain them?
I will, with God’s help.
Well stated. This article is deceptive at best and illustrative of why the UMC must go through schism in order to continue to exist.
Hi Chris, thanks for reading. Affirmation of both the Moral Principles and the Doctrinal Standards are required by catechetical confession to become a member of WCA.
Therefore, they are on the same level without the separate liturgical affirmations that the UMC uses (and you name). So I don’t see how I misrepresented the WCA in their own words.
I am afraid I am not following. WCA is a voluntary association like the UMC. Unlike the UMC, we are not a church. If it is OK for the UMC to ask its members to accept its doctrine, discipline, and polity before joining, why is it not OK for WCA to do the same? What is the catechetical confession of which you speak?
Jeremy, I applaud you for taking the time to write and research this issue. I wonder, however, if your concern is not so much with the WCA, but with the UMC. The statements on homosexuality in the Book of Discipline are what the WCA affirms and supports.
If the WCA is “creeping orthodoxy,” and it affirms the doctrines in the BOD, what creative term would you give to the UMC?
For all their claims of “rightly interpreting the Scriptures,” the WCA seems not to have dealt adequately with the question of how prostitutes such as Rahab and Tamar, adulterers and murderers such as David, and idolaters such as Solomon can be included in “the elect,” but LGBTQ persons who love and serve Jesus Christ as their Lord cannot. I wonder how many of their membership have read Stanley Hauerwas’ essay “Gay Friendship: A Thought Experiment in Catholic Moral Theology” in his collection of essays, “Sanctify Them in Truth.” I wonder how many are familiar with Andrew Marin’s “Love Is an Orientation: Elevating the Conversation with the Gay Community.” Heck, I wonder how many of them have ever sat down continuously over a long period of time and had an actual conversation with devoted gay Christians whose very lives show their objections to full inclusion of faithfully partnered LGBTQ persons to be based on a web of lies and willing misrepresentations of the Gospel. God will not hold them guiltless who take God’s name in vain against God’s beloved LGBTQ children.
Please describe the differences of the Old and New Covenants and the differences in churches as a result of them. Include the differences in the sacrifices and effects on the believers when you do. Doing that should answer all of your questions.
Rahab AS a Harlot is accepted in the NEW Testament as an example of faith in Hebrews 11:31 and someone who was Justified by works AS a harlot in James 2:25.
So, maybe all the Book of Discipline prohibition in the UMC against LGBTQ clergy and same-sex weddings actually violates the UMC Articles of Religion, which is a higher law than mere General Conference imposed requirements. Others have recently said, “To raise an opinion about homosexuality or even a law within the Book of Discipline to the level of an orthodox doctrine is a violation of Article I of the Restrictive Rules” (¶17). That article says that “General Conference shall not revoke, alter, or change our Articles of Religion or establish any new standards of doctrine contrary to our present existing and established standards of doctrine.” It’s time for some respect for our UMC constitution against the continuing unlawful actions of the General Conference since 1972.
It’s certainly time for the UMC to recognize that the Orthodoxy of being Methodist does not include creating new exclusions over these last 44 years, which drowns out the love and grace of Christ for all! Thanks Jeremy for helping us understand the absolute hypocrisy of the pseudo-orthodoxy that the WCA proclaims.
It’s time for some respect for our UMC constitution against the unlawful actions of the General Conference since 1972.
Creeping Book of Discipline.
The great irony of accusing those attempting to help the UMC hold on to historic orthodoxy of accommodating culture precisely because they will not accommodate culture in the areas the author believes the church should.
I would tend to be opposed to making creeds *binding* or requiring assent to them. They could be studied, but I don’t think Church members or Clergy should be required to ascribe to any doctrine that is not found explicitly in Scripture. And even in Scripture, there should be latitude of interpretation. I think, for instance, that a person can be Christian and be either Arian, adoptionist, Pelagian and deny original sin as well as believing in Universal Salvation. Perhaps requiring the Apostle’s creed is OK, but I wouldn’t require the Nicene Creed. It could be studied in Churches, but for instance, it states that Jesus had no beginning. In Colossians 1:15, it states that Jesus was the “first born” of all creation. This could imply that he had a beginning. Perhaps what could be required is an assent to Jesus being the Son of God, but latitude in understanding just what that term means. It could mean he became the Son before creation, or he became that at birth or he did at his Baptism. Being God’s Son really means “King.”
Perfectly pent content material, regards for entropy. “No human thing is of serious importance.” by Plato.