IRD on Heresies
From September 28th to October 1st of 2006, a conference was held in San Francisco entitled “Building a Wesleyan Theology of Peace for the 21st Century”. It was sponsored by the national organization and religious-based lobbyist group Methodists United for Peace with Justice (MPUWJ). Their conference served the purpose of to bringing together church leaders, seminarians, peace practitioners, local clergy, and lay people to sit together and think prayerfully about a Wesleyan theology of peace.
This conference was blasted in the last edition of UMAction, a publication of the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD). The argued that the conference received money from the United Methodist Board of Church and Society, an official body of the United Methodist Church (UMC), and espoused doctrines which are contrary to United Methodist doctrine. The Institute on Religion and Democracy’s primary issue was the United Methodist Church stands within the “just war theory” tradition of the Christian Church and so the United Methodist Church is not a “peace church” in the tradition of Mennonites, Quakers, or the Amish.
Problems
1. As the MPUWJ themselves explain in their literature: “As our name “Methodists United” indicates, we seek the participation of all the Methodist family in the United States, including African Methodist Episcopal, African Methodist Episcopal Zion, Christian Methodist Episcopal, Free Methodist, United Methodist, and Wesleyan Churches. However, we are not an official part of any Methodist denomination.”
Since they are not an organ of the UMC, the MPUWJ has no obligation to uphold the doctrinal positions of the United Methodist Church.
2. Is the IRD honestly suggesting that the United Methodist Church no longer fund any form of theological exploration and deepening of our faith understanding? Their claim that we are not a “peace church” is only half right. It is an absolute and required doctrinal position of all United Methodists that “war and bloodshed are contrary to the gospel and spirit of Christ.” This is part of our unchangeable doctrine. However, the statement that war “be employed only as a last resort in the prevention of such evils as genocide, brutal suppression of human rights, and unprovoked international aggression” (Book of Discipline, par. ¶65C) is part of the Social Principles of the UMC. It is doctrine for now, but may be changed by any vote of the governing body of the church. For this reason, it is always up for discussion, exploration and further prayerful development.
The IRD’s believe seems to espouse “once doctrine always doctrine”. On the case of some spiritual foundations, this make sense. No one is arguing that Christians give up the two natures of Jesus Christ, the Trinity, or our doctrine of atonement. But Christians have found different ways in every generation and place to live faithfully to the call of God. This is a leading by God’s Holy Spirit to be a faithful witness to Jesus Christ.
The claim that we need to follow the United Methodist Book of Discipline to the exclusion of prayerful consideration that the Holy Spirit may be leading us to knew ways of faithful devotion to the risen Lord Jesus is a greater form of heresy than they claim for the MPUWJ is slipping into.
Conclusion
I am not an advocate of strict pacifism. I agree with old Reinhold Niebuhr that it is more wish fulfillment than a recognition that we live on “this side” of the Kingdom of God. However, those who fight for a radical and literal devotion to Jesus as “the Prince of Peace” ought not to be derogated. We should honor their commitment and consider the possibility (ever generation) that they may now be right.
