One of the things that has shaped the early days of the Global Methodist Church is a commitment to classic Christian orthodoxy and sound doctrine. That is to say, it is crucially important to make sure that our beliefs are correct, by which we mean in alignment with the words and spirit of the Holy Scriptures. In spite of what news organizations may have claimed, the key issue for all the Global Methodist leaders that I know was always Biblical authority and the importance of doctrine. It has been the focus of many articles in the past few years, and it is indeed crucial.
This stress is so important that we may start to think that the correctness of our beliefs is the only thing that we should focus on. In fact, if we are to be worthy heirs of our Wesleyan heritage, our doctrine cannot be the only thing we care about, because it wasn’t the only thing that Wesley cared about.
The very first words in Wesley’s sermon “On the Trinity” might come as a surprise to many Global Methodists who have pursued doctrine so vehemently. “Whatsoever the generality of people may think, it is certain that opinion is not religion: No, not right opinion; assent to one, or to ten thousand truths. There is a wide difference between them: Even right opinion is as distant from religion as the east is from the west. Persons may be quite right in their opinions, and yet have no religion at all; and, on the other hand, persons may be truly religious, who hold many wrong opinions.”
This quotation, of course, does not show us that Wesley did not care about doctrine, only that there are other things that matter even more than our doctrine. I am not including it here to imply that Wesley did not think that our doctrine and our discipleship were related. Our ability to grow as disciples will be impacted by how well we have come to know the ways of God. The more fully and accurately we understand who God is, the more likely it is that we will be able to live in accordance with it. There are people whose lives of discipleship are noticeably better than their theological understanding. Thanks be to God that grace extends to us all! It would be better, though, if our doctrine is sound, because we will not have to fight against it as we grow as disciples.
At our recent General Conference, I had the great privilege to be part of the Doctrine and Sacraments Legislative Committee and chair one of its subcommittees. I can bear witness to the fact that the whole room was full of people who took that theological task extremely seriously. We got down into the weeds of the proposed (now passed) Articles of Faith to try to be as precise and accurate as we could be. We discussed, we prayed, we discerned, and we came to a remarkable unity, which was only enhanced by the amendment made on the floor of the whole conference. It was work where we felt that the Holy Spirit was in our midst and shaping our direction.
If our main task as Wesleyan Christians was to draw a theological line in the sand and establish clear doctrine, it has been done, and we can all sit back and relax. I think that there is a temptation to do just that. For many in the Global Methodist Church, the big anxiety was whether we would reclaim a focus on our Wesleyan theological heritage. Knowing that this crucial work has been done and can keep us rooted could make us assume that the real work is finished. We only need to perpetuate this doctrine into the future.
This would be a disastrous betrayal of our Wesleyan heritage. There is a reason that Wesley frequently referred to practical divinity. This is not (as our modern usage might make it seem) that we are being purely pragmatic and saying whatever we think will be the most effective, regardless of the truth. Rather, it is a way of engaging with what we believe in such a way that it makes a difference in our lives and in the lives of our hearers.
In fact, it is worth recalling that the title of the book, outside of the Bible, that governs the Global Methodist Church is the Book of Doctrines and Discipline. This is historic language that goes back to Wesley’s original vision for Methodist conferences. “The design of our meeting was proposed; namely, to consider, 1. What to teach; 2. How to teach; and 3. What to do; that is, how to regulate our doctrine, discipline, and practice” (Minutes of Some Late Conversations; The Works of Wesley, viii, 275).
We have spent much of the past few years discussing our doctrine, and it was time well spent. We should continue to explain it and teach it. Indeed, as I wrote in my last article for this newsletter, we should so completely immerse ourselves in it that we find ourselves no longer having to strive to teach it because it is naturally what comes out of our mouths every time we preach or teach. This is vital for our future. If we lose sight of our theological grounding, we will drift over time.
One of the actions of the General Conference that has gotten less attention than the Articles of Faith (at least so far as I have seen) is the action to provide an update to the language of our General Rules. This petition fell under the responsibility of my subcommittee. The original proposal was to delete the General Rules from the section protected by the Restrictive Rules so that they could be changed over time. In the end, we left the Rules where they were in their historic form, but then added an updated version later in the Book of Doctrines and Discipline.
To be clear, the intention was to be more precise and prophetic about the virtues that we are called to pursue as we go on to Perfection and also about the vices that we must combat. The intention was to put the Rules into a form where they could once more be binding on the church, shaping our lives together and not merely a historic document of what we used to think was important.
I applaud that goal. Before we came up with the solution that we passed, when we had to recommend either leaving the Rules alone or else moving them, I found myself torn between the options. On the one hand, moving them seemed good for a few reasons. Partly it was because of all the benefits of making it a living and prophetic voice that will call us to holiness. It also struck me as being an obviously good idea because its historical location was in the section regarding doctrine and, though important, the General Rules do not contain “doctrine” in the usual sense of the word.
And yet, I found myself thinking that we should maintain the strict protection that we have historically had in place for the General Rules because they may actually be more central to what it means to be Methodist than our doctrine. There were individuals who disagreed with Wesley’s theological perspective but were allowed to remain among the Methodists if they agreed to keep the General Rules and not make a fuss about their disagreements. However, someone could be as theologically aligned with Wesley as possible, but they could not retain their Methodist membership if they refused to submit to the General Rules. The Rules belong as part of our heritage protected by the Restrictive Rules, and they belong as a living document that calls us forward in discipleship. The action of the General Conference was wise.
With all of the discussion leading up to the General Conference about the Articles of Faith, I imagine that anyone who is interested in our theological convictions has read (or at least skimmed) through them.
The importance of the way that we live in the light of the Gospel is hard to overstate. If we confess with our lips that Jesus is Lord but our lives deny him, what will the world conclude about what we really believe? If we who claim the Lordship of Christ cannot be bothered to live consistently with that Lordship, why should anyone else start?
Also, for anyone who has been interested over the past several years with reclaiming our Wesleyan heritage, this should be a top priority. It is not a coincidence that, in his sermon on the “Causes of the Inefficacy of Christianity,” Wesley said that “whatever doctrine is preached, where there is no discipline, it cannot have its full effect upon the hearers” (§7). He also wrote to “Mr. Hopper” in 1770 that “If a man preach like an angel, he will do little good without exact discipline.”
If we are to be authentic Wesleyans, faithful heirs to the Wesleyan tradition, we need both doctrine and discipline, orthodoxy and orthopraxy. In many ways, establishing the doctrine was the easy part. It took discernment, it took commitment, and it took the Holy Spirit, but the vote was taken, and the doctrine is established. Now, we must do the work to live it out. This is vital work that cannot be outsourced to someone else. The General Conference cannot live your life of discipleship for you. You must pray, receive the Holy Spirit, take up your cross, and follow Jesus today, tomorrow, and every day.
