Jason Vickers of United Seminary in an article in November/December issue of Good News entitled "The Marks of Christ and His Church," contrasts the four "marks of the church" (oneness, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity) identified in the United Methodist Confession of Faith with the four "marks" which seem to characterize the United Methodist Church today, namely: inclusivity, openness, tolerance, and diversity. It appears that much of United Methodism today has given up the historic understanding of the church for capitulation to the wider culture.
Those who still are committed to the historic understanding of the church will find reason to be hopeful in Bishop Reuben Job's book, Three Simple Rules: a Wesleyan Way of Living. The book attempts to address a call by the bishops to "live the United Methodist Way" in their daily lives and public witness. Bishop Job does this by an appeal to John Wesley's General Rules, which are part of our doctrinal standards.
The issue at hand is whether "the United Methodist Way" the bishops speak about is primarily about inclusivity, openness, tolerance, and diversity (as Vickers implies) or whether it is about showing "evidence of the desire for salvation" (John Wesley's words) in living out the General Rules, as those rules are made relevant for our day. Evangelicals cast their lot with a commitment to a life style informed by the General Rules.
Rule #2 is about "doing good." (Rule #1, "by doing no harm" was discussed in the last Happenings article).
For Wesley doing good was a matter of a life-style characterized by acts of mercy, and by personally caring for the physical and spiritual needs of others, by living frugally, and by a willingness to suffer for the sake of Christ. There is also a statement about supporting those who are of "the household of faith" and employing them preferably to others. The wider context for this rule is in the Methodist reaction to antinomianism (in salvation by faith one is not required to do good deeds). In Wesley's mind we do our good deeds not just when we feel like it but as an act of the will, that is, even when we don't feel like it. This is to show evidence for our desire for salvation.
Either way, it is in the personal concern for others, especially the least of God's children, that the remark about "social holiness" is made.
Much of the general church seems to operate with a different understanding of "doing good." The bishops have just issued a statement (to be read in the churches) entitled: "God's Renewed Creation: Call to Hope and Action." There is much that is good in the statement. But one gets the feeling from the statement that doing good is mostly about seeking to influence public policy on issues relating to neglect of the poor, producing of weapons, leaving carbon footprints, restoring health, and destruction of the planet. We are to advocate for peace in the halls of power. All of this is prefaced with a quote from John Wesley: "There is no holiness but social holiness." In what then has to be considered a most grievous form of language debasing, the statement then speaks of "environmental" and "social holiness." "Holiness" now carries a new meaning (and it is not exactly clear what the new meaning is). What a shame it would be if the UMC so de-emphasized the Gospel that it was little more than a "water carrier" for one of America's political parties.
Other United Methodist stories from United Methodist news service in the last four months report various church agencies and groups calling for affordable health care (3 different stories on this), for restoration of rights in Honduras, for inter-faith peacekeeping, for challenging the mascot of the Washington Redskins, for an increase in the minimum wage, and for immigration reform. There may be much to commend in these pronouncements but at the very least there is a lack of balance as to how one goes about doing good in the world, and at the most there is a depressing suspicion that "living the United Methodist Way" is mostly about political action.
Contrast this with the kinds of challenges the church has issued in the past. In 1874 the bishops of the M.E. Church South challenged the church to live holy lives and identified areas that they felt were important. This was followed by reports of the committee on the state of the church which reported in subsequent quadrennia. The emphasis in these reports was on repentance for departing from the simplicity of the gospel as Methodists first received it. More specifically it was a listing of those departures: inordinate love of the world, forms of wealth, forms of fashion, and amusement. Citing the General Rules, the lists got specific: card-playing, theater-going, attendance upon race-courses, circuses, and the like. There was a call for family religion, a call for the purity and integrity of the body of Christ, for avoiding heresy in doctrine and corruptness in life.
The cultural situation has obviously changed from the 1870s and 1880s. But God's call for holy living has not. This emphasis on holy living is what we in the Confessing Movement consider "the United Methodist way."
