On the Formation of the Global Methodist Church: A Response to Mara Richards Bim
Photo by The Global Methodist Church (used with permission).
Baptist News Global recently published a piece by Mara Richards Bim disparaging the Global Methodist Church. Unfortunately, it involves several mischaracterizations of the GMC, which I'll address in what follows. I want to say from the outset that I'm not writing in any official capacity as a representative of the GMC. I'm an elder in the GMC and I chair one of our denominational commissions. These opinions, however, are mine, not those of a denominational body.
Bim identifies what she believes to be both a text and a subtext behind the disaffiliations from the UMC. She writes, "The text — or the part said aloud — was the assertion that the UMC had become too liberal, was no longer operating biblically and those leaving were the true orthodox Christians." This statement is only partly accurate. The problem wasn't simply that the UMC had become too liberal. It was that on paper we upheld biblical and historic beliefs and practices, while in practice many in the church set these aside. The part of Bim's statement that rings true is that we were not operating biblically, but not just on matters of sex and marriage. The ecclesiastical trench warfare in which we were engaged was not biblical. The absence of church discipline was not biblical, nor were the political machinations and intrigue that characterized every General Conference. It is one thing to disagree with your ideological opponents. It is another to mischaracterize their motives. Bim has done the latter, whether intentionally or not, I don't know.
As for the claim that those who left felt they were "the true orthodox Christians," again, this is a mischaracterization. I don't know anyone in the GMC who would assert that all the orthodox Christians left the UMC. Likewise, I don't know anyone in the GMC who would suggest that we are the only orthodox Christians. I doubt Bim does, either. The leadership of the UMC, however, had created a situation in which the more conservative United Methodists could win every vote within our highest decision-making body, the general conference, but it wouldn't matter. The bishops would govern as they wished. We had become a de facto diocesan church in which individual bishops made decisions about doctrine, practice, and discipline that properly belonged with the general conference. The governance of the church was broken. The UMC would henceforth become more progressive, if not on paper, certainly in practice. In order to live within a communion that practiced the faith in a manner we believed to be consistent with Scripture and the consensual tradition of Christianity, we had to leave.
So much for the text. “The subtext,” Bim writes, “was a continuation of the decades-long battle over what is often called ‘biblical inerrancy.’” Were this the case, one would think that at our first general conference we would have added an inerrancy statement to our Book of Doctrines and Discipline. We did not. The GMC does include beloved brothers and sisters who affirm inerrancy in one form or another. It also includes some who prefer other terms, such as “infallibility.” Others prefer to use neither of these terms.
The ways in which we define “inerrancy” and “infallibility” can vary from person to person, group to group. If Bim wishes to characterize the GMC as a group of inerrantists, it would be helpful for her to define the term. Does she mean that we hold to a doctrine of plenary verbal inspiration of the autographs? Does she mean something like what we find in the Lausanne Covenant, that Scripture is “without error in all that it affirms”? My sense is that the latter would be closer to the position of most Global Methodists, though again one finds a variety of positions within our communion.
As one who was involved in the formation of the GMC from early on, however, I can testify that “inerrancy” was neither text nor subtext. Many felt, and continue to feel, that we need to refine our doctrine of Scripture, but this was among a host of issues behind our departure from the UMC. Issues with the episcopacy, the jurisdictional system, the representation of the global church, apportionment funding, and theological education took up far more space in our conversations than the question of whether or not we should affirm biblical inerrancy.
Bim then compares those who left the GMC to slaveholders of the American South.
The same thing happened more than 160 years ago when the Methodists, Baptists, and Presbyterians each split over the issue of chattel slavery. Those North of the Mason-Dixon Line found slavery incompatible with the teachings of Jesus. Those in the South pointed to the inclusion of slavery in the Bible as simply a fact of life — something to be emulated by those who believed in the authority of Scripture.
No, “the same thing” did not happen over 160 years ago. The animating concerns of Southern slaveholders were not the animating concerns that have given rise to the Global Methodist Church. A large part of our constituency, moreover, is not American. Africans, Filipinos, Eastern Europeans, and others from across the world comprise a large portion of our congregants.
Further, it is inaccurate to suggest that, during the period leading up to the American Civil War, those in favor of slavery held to biblical inerrancy while those who opposed slavery did not. To make the debate about slavery a debate about inerrancy is anachronistic. The fundamentalist-modernist controversy, in which inerrancy became a flashpoint of debate among Christians, came well after the Civil War. Further, and more significantly, the disagreement over slavery was not a disagreement over inerrancy, but over which biblical themes were normative for the Christian life. Both abolitionists and those in favor of slavery felt the Bible was true in its guidance on the matter. Both felt that the other interpreted Scripture’s meaning incorrectly.
Bim then crafts a narrative in which fundamentalism has from time to time risen up and then gone “underground,” only to rise up again intermittently. It’s a strange way to look at the history of American Christianity, but I’ll leave that aside. According to this narrative, one particularly menacing development was the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. She then raises the matter of the conservative takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention. How is this relevant to the Global Methodist Church? “This history is important when considering the more recent split within the Methodist church. Once again, fundamentalism reared its ugly head. However, in the case of the Methodists it was those advancing some version of biblical inerrancy who broke away from the denomination. Many of them went on to form the GMC.”
The history is certainly important, but not in the way she asserts. The GMC has not adopted the Chicago Statement, nor did we take over the UMC. On the contrary, one might look at the formation of the GMC as the result of a progressive takeover. The conservatives won every vote. According to the legitimate, agreed-upon processes that were in place, we had, on paper, a denomination that reflected a traditional vision of Christian faith. Progressives, however, controlled the levers of real denominational power and could violate church law with impunity. They could do what they wanted to do, and many did.
Next, Bim takes aim at our use of the word "normative." "In fact," she writes, "the GMC really likes the word 'normative,' using it 17 times to emphasize that its interpretations and Scriptures are the correct ones all members are to subscribe to. By comparison, the UMC Book of Discipline never uses the word 'normative' and its only use of the word 'orthodox' is in its explanation of the rise of biblical inerrancy in the history of the church." Surprisingly enough, we agree here: the GMC and the UMC differ in their willingness explicitly to identify normative beliefs and practices.
Where we disagree is on the value of doing so. Let’s be clear: every Christian tradition involves certain normative beliefs and practices. The UMC is no exception. Even the claim that there are no normative beliefs is a normative belief. It is kindness, not cruelty, to offer clarity regarding which beliefs are normative and which are not. Many conservative pastors ran headlong into a buzzsaw of unspoken progressive normative beliefs within their annual conferences. It would have been more merciful simply to have said up front that their beliefs were unwelcome. These pastors could then have made decisions about denominational affiliation without having to endure the pain of unspoken disenfranchisement.
To address Bim’s next point, I need to quote at length:
It’s interesting to note that the UMC’s Book of Discipline goes on to encourage both ecumenical and interfaith cooperation even when disagreements over doctrine occur:
Christians, some of which continue to divide the church deeply today, faithful Christians need to face their disagreements and even their despair and not cover differences with false claims of consensus or unanimity. On the contrary, the church needs to embrace conflicts with courage and perseverance as we seek together to discern God’s will. With that understanding and commitment, we pledge ourselves to acknowledge and to embrace with courage, trust and hope those controversies that arise among us, accepting them as evidence that God is not yet finished in sculpting us to be God’s people.
By contrast, the GMC — intent on elevating its doctrine as the “correct” one — refers at length to the “false teaching” outside its denomination. In describing why their definition of the normative standards are good and true, their Book of Discipline states:
These constitutive, normative standards embody the “faith once for all entrusted to the saints” (Jude 3) and serve as a bulwark against false teaching, providing the framework for the praise of God in our teaching (orthodoxy), the development of our collective theology, and the launching point for our living and service (orthopraxis).
I have both a master’s degree in education and a master’s degree in divinity and disagree with the GMC defining its teaching as “orthodoxy.” Rightly understood, one might describe one’s beliefs as orthodox, but one’s teaching is better described as praxis. Orthodoxy is defined as right thinking or belief.
The characterization of the GMC as "intent on elevating its doctrine as the 'correct' one" is, frankly, bizarre. Our normative documents are the Nicene Creed, the Apostles' Creed, and the Definition of Chalcedon. These do not simply represent "our" doctrines. They represent the ecumenical consensus of Western Christianity across centuries. We don't own these documents. They are part of our inheritance as baptized Christians. Hence, the irony of Bim's framing of our beliefs within a larger discussion of ecumenism. The insistence upon these documents as normative is, in fact, an ecumenical move. We are uniting with Christians across the world and across time in affirming this ancient faith.
And no, the church’s teachings are not properly construed as “praxis.” How we teach is praxis. How we live is praxis. What we teach is doctrine.
Bim’s next critique is that the GMC prohibits same-sex marriage but is silent on the matter of divorce and child marriage. This is a valid point, and these are matters we need to address in time.
She continues, “The only question remaining for me about the GMC is this: When do you plan to strip women of the right to ordination?” I can answer this question: never. There are no serious proposals on the table to deprive women of ordination. Bim believes we will do so because she regards the GMC as an instantiation of inerrantist fundamentalism, but, as I hope I’ve demonstrated, this characterization is inaccurate. Perhaps in the future our denomination will change. I can’t rule out such a possibility. Any denomination can change. The UMC has changed. Speaking for myself, however, I will go on record to say I would vehemently oppose any proposal to deprive women of ordination. If our delegates turned their backs on the clergywomen who have supported the formation of the GMC, who have entrusted this new denomination with their calling and vocation, I would leave. I could not stomach such a betrayal. Moreover, I believe our position is biblically and doctrinally sound.
I honestly hope this is the last piece I ever write on the division of the UMC and the formation of the GMC. I’ve written it because I feel that Bim has presented an inaccurate and unsound account of the GMC’s formation. Some response was necessary, if only for the historical record. The split has happened. The UMC and the GMC have chosen their paths, and neither of us is perfect. Our disagreements are significant, and for some of us the wounds still sting. Yet we do not have to be enemies. We can love one another, just as we love Presbyterians, Roman Catholics, Nazarenes, and Baptists. Ongoing recrimination is unnecessary and unhelpful. Let’s move on.
David F. Watson is President of Asbury Theological Seminary and Lead Editor of Firebrand.