Wesley, the Articles of Religion, and the Local Option

 

In the present controversy within The United Methodist Church the idea of a “local option”, that is one which would allow annual conferences to make decisions about whether or not to ordain openly gay or lesbian people or would allow pastors to decide whether or not they would marry same gender couples, has become a major point of contention. For some this offers a way forward that will respect the consciences of people who hold opposing views. For others it is an enshrining of disunity in the polity of the church and a contradiction of the connectional system. The question I wish to pose is: “If you recognize those who disagree with you on this issue as committed followers of Christ who are seeking to faithfully interpret and apply the Word of God; is some form of local option consistent with our Wesleyan heritage?”

Article 22 of our UMC Articles of Religion states:

It is not necessary that rites and ceremonies should in all places be the same, or exactly alike; for they have been always different, and may be changed according to the diversity of countries, times, and men’s manners, so that nothing be ordained against God’s Word. Whosoever, through his private judgment, willingly and purposely doth openly break the rites and ceremonies of the church to which he belongs, which are not repugnant to the Word of God, and are ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly, that others may fear to do the like, as one that offendeth against the common order of the church, and woundeth the consciences of weak brethren.

Every particular church may ordain, change, or abolish rites and ceremonies, so that all things may be done to edification.

 This is a slight revision of an Article in the 39 Articles of the Church of England – the details of these changes are not relevant to our discussion.  The first sentence of the article explicitly affirms the rites and ceremonies of the church should not be the same in all places, and that they may be changed to reflect contextual realities.  It then states that this is so that nothing can be ordained that is contrary to the God’s Word. The implication of this is that to insist that rites and ceremonies must be the same in all places is contrary to the God’s word. Why? Reading this through Wesleyan eyes, and not necessarily how the original writers of the Anglican Articles would have intended it, I would suggest the following:

• Wesley regarded many church practices as human creations which were developed to serve the missional and pastoral needs of the church. (Note the last sentence of the article.) When these become set in stone and not subject to contextual difference or change they become an obstacle to the mission of the church and thus contrary to the Word of God.
• Wesley also held that some aspects of church practice and polity were based up scriptural injunctions. However, he recognized that, for many reasons, people disagreed as to what scripture required. This is classically set out in his sermon “Catholic Spirit”. People of good conscience disagree on issues of theology. You could be wrong even when you are convinced you are faithfully interpreting scripture. In different circumstances you might come to a different conclusion. Hence the church must always be open to the possibility of change. To refuse to do so is to place the authority of the church over the Word of God

The Article thus recognizes the need for contextually appropriate rites and ceremonies that express to the particular “manners of men”. The “manners of men” is a very broad category it includes a considerable variety of practices, forms of behavior, ways of life, and habits. Given the diversity of the socio-cultural contexts in which the UMC, as a transnational denomination exists, contextualization and hence forms of “local option” are a necessity. Failure to implement this is, in Wesley’s understanding, contrary to the Word of God. This is also true within a country as diverse as the USA.

The next part of the article states that members of the church should not openly act against the rites and ceremonies of the church that are not contrary to the word of God.  This of course raises the question of what is and what is not contrary to the word of God. Wesley himself regularly acted contrary to the rules of the Church of England when he believed they hindered his ministry. This is classically displayed in his approach to ordination. Wesley came to believe that, contrary to the polity of the Church of England, bishops were not a third order of clergy, and hence any ordained priest had the right to ordain others. He did not put this into practice at first, but when he came to believe that it was necessary for the mission in America he did so, openly breaking the rites and ceremonies of the church to which he belonged. Wesley did not at the time ordain preachers serving in England though he hoped to retain a strong connection between the Methodists in England constituted as religious societies and the Methodists in America constituted as a church. In a connectional there was space for significant contextualization even in a key polity issue such as ordination.

Wesley’s practice and the principles of the Article require some forms of “local option” to respond to the differences in “men’s manners”, failure to implement them would be contrary to the word of God as it would obstruct the mission of the church. The question is whether the issues around same gender marriage and the ordination of openly gay and lesbian people is an issue where a local option is possible and maybe even required. The issue is clearly more than disagreement over rites and ceremonies although it does involve them. But it is a disagreement in, amongst other issues, what the article describes a “men’s manners”. In previous blogs I have argued that this is an area where faithful Christians disagree. Further, in our transnational church there are also very different contexts for ministry and mission; ranging from contexts where sexual relationships between members of the same gender are not only contrary to deeply rooted religious and cultural ideas but are also illegal; to contexts where the affirmation of such relationships is regarded as self-evident and any religious rejection of them is held to be discriminatory. Hence, if one recognizes those who disagree with one on this issue as committed followers of Christ who are seeking to faithfully interpret and apply the Word of God revealed in scripture, then some contextually differentiated responses are not only consistent with our Wesleyan heritage but may be required by it. A form of local option is consistent with this. There remains a question as to how ‘local’ is local? Should decisions be made at the level of congregations, Annual Conferences, or Central Conferences; or some mixture of them.  However, the conundrum in the UMC moves beyond this.  On the one hand, there are people who are convinced that they cannot in good conscience be part of the same church where people, not only hold different views on this, but implement these views. On the other hand, some people to not regard those who disagree with them as committed followers of Christ seeking to be faithful the word of God revealed in Scripture, but as people who are deliberately acting contrary to the Word of God. Wesley argued that people must not be coerced to act against their consciences even when we believe they are wrong. I am convinced that a local option is not only consistent with our Wesleyan heritage and doctrinal statements, but could be part of comprehensive model for the future of the UMC that seeks to adequately deal with theological and contextual differences and protects the integrity of people’s consciences. However, any such model will also have to provide for those who cannot in good conscience accept a local option. The struggle remains as to how to keep as much unity as possible but in a way which respects the diversity of theological convictions, Contextual differences,  and peoples conscience.