Articles of religion
How I’d change them
It
is time to “fish or cut bait.” I’ve written for weeks about membership in
general terms but I’ve suggested nothing very specific nor stated the actual
changes I’d make in my own denomination’s “membership standards.” My readers have been grateful for the
insights but have been nagging me by saying in their emails the familiar, “So,
what do you think?” They expect me to suggest how I would change membership
standards in my own denomination if I were in charge. So, if you are not a Wesleyan (and most of my reader aren’t) go
read something else, this is for readers in my own denomination, The Wesleyan
Church. Here is what I’d do if I
were in charge.
First
I should point out I am not
in charge. I hold no denominational
office, serve on no denominational committees and won’t be voting on most of
what I am about to suggest. In short I
have little vested interest and gain or lose little whatever my denomination
does. I am a retired denominational
leader who has full confidence in the church to decide these matters without
advice from me or anyone else. Yet I
have raised the issue and my readers are right to “call” and insist I state my
preferred position since I have opinions about just about everything else, why
not this?
So,
given this disclaimer here
goes. I’m not out to convince you of
anything, or to get into an argument with you.
I just hope I can get you to do what I’m about to do—go on record with
some ideas. If you don’t like my
solutions, fine—write your own then advocate for them in the marketplace of
ideas where these decisions will be made.
If my solutions get you to think things through I’ve accomplished my
goal—getting you to think.
My
denomination has three[1]
primary sections related to membership:
·
Articles of
Religion (21 mostly doctrinal
statements based on the old Methodist and Anglican teaching with an American
holiness “spin.”)
·
Membership
Commitments (mostly lifestyle
behaviors “Covenant Members” commit to live by)
·
Special
Directions (Admonitions to
members but not commitments—what our church teaches its members and our
collective admonitions to ourselves—“what to expect to hear” at our churches
but less than “promises” members make.)
I
think dividing our membership standards into categories like this is wise and I think all denominations should do it. It is a smart system and makes for easier
training of members between what we demand, what we expect and what they should
expect us to teach. And, when times
change, having several categories makes it easier to move things around without
merely tossing out old positions—we can move them form one category to another.[2] Since there are three categories I will
address them one at a time in these articles, thus I will first address the
“Articles of Religion” which are more important but have lesser interest than
the “membership Commitments” where I expect the real heat and smoke rise.
So,
how would I change the “Articles of Religion?” Not much. I
like change, but when it comes to doctrine I think churches should be extremely
cautious about fiddling with their doctrines.
As pointed out above, my denomination’s Articles of Religion weren’t
just dreamed up by some guys in a New York room in 1843, or in Cincinnati in
1903—they are rooted in Methodist doctrines and even earlier, in the Anglican
articles of faith. One should not mess
around with doctrines that have been around for hundreds of years without
serious thought. Lots of serious
thought. Yet over time we have fiddled
around with them—indeed some of those changes we’ve made over the years might
even need reversing. Thus while being a
“conservative” on doctrine, I’m open to
examining some of these things. So
here’s what I’d want to change in our twenty-one Articles of Religion:
I.
I think we should eliminate the Scriptural references for each article. I’m with
Melvin Dieter here (who opposed adding these in the 1980s). Even the Pope
doesn’t tell Catholics what certain Scriptures mean. They were mostly the work of one man who thought he was helping
pastors assist their people in understanding how these beliefs are rooted in
the Bible. But anyone who seriously
studies these references will quickly discover they stretch (and sometimes
abuse) Scripture to support a position and can even cause a potential
(thinking) candidate for membership come to believe the position is actually
has less Biblical support rather then convincing them. Proof texts like this are not the “Wesleyan
way” and belong in membership materials not in the constitution of the
denomination.
II.
I think we should “re-mint” some of the other statements. By “re-mint”
I mean melt down the gold and stamp a fresh coin using the same metal. Words change over time and some of the
additions we’ve stuck in there over time are due to be re-minted. Here is the list and what I think we might
re-mint:
I.
Faith in the Holy Trinity (leave it be)
II.
The Father (leave it be)
III.
The Son of God (leave it be)
IV.
The Holy Spirit (leave it be)
V.
The Sufficiency and Full Authority of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation (I’d change this
one. When we added “fully inerrant in their
original manuscripts” it didn’t help much… except to align us with fundamentalists
outside of our own tradition. The
statement “They are the inspired and infallibly written Word of God” was quite good enough as
it was… but we felt we needed to take sides in a fight that was not ours. The rest of the statement is great and covers the bases quite
well: …superior to all human authority,
and have been transmitted to the present without corruption of any essential
doctrine. We believe that they contain all things necessary to salvation; so
that whatever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be
required of any man or woman that it should be believed as an article of faith,
or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. Both in the Old and New
Testaments life is offered ultimately through Christ, who is the only Mediator
between God and humanity. The New Testament teaches Christians how to fulfill
the moral principles of the Old Testament, calling for loving obedience to God
made possible by the indwelling presence of His Holy Spirit. However few
people care about the word “inerrant” (except people who teach and study the
Bible). And fewer still know what
“inerrant in the original manuscripts” actually means. So I don’t expect this change to
happen—because someone will say “we’re softening our stand on the Bible” or
“now we’re saying the Bible had errors in it.”
I think the word is a useless word. However, the term for many today
actually has come to mean, “the Bible is inerrant in all matters of faith and
practice in the original manuscripts” which is what we essentially said before
we added the term. This change probably
won’t happen and probably won’t matter even if it did. But I don’t think adding the term helped
anything really—there are still plenty of shibboleths left in the statement to
make sure Bible scholars stay in line and teach good solid conservative views
of the Bible.
VI.
God's Purpose for Humanity (leave it be)
VII.
Marriage and the Family (leave it be including the statement ”God's plan
for human sexuality is that it is to be expressed only in a monogamous lifelong
relationship between one man and one woman within the framework of marriage”
VIII.
Personal Choice (leave it be—it is a great statement on depravity, our
incapability to save ourselves, prevenient grace and free will—I love it!)
IX.
The Atonement (leave it be—sorry Calvinists but we think God’s grace “saves”
the mentally incompetent and all children automatically until they reach an age
when they can be accountable for their own sin. This is a great statement about
God and His grace. I love it!)
X.
Repentance and Faith (leave it be—a wonderful statement describing how God
has extended grace to all-yet a person must voluntarily respond—but even the
ability to respond comes from God though the act is the individual’s. We could all preach this article and people
would be better for it!
XI.
Justification, Regeneration and Adoption (leave it be—great definitions
here we ought to teach—it would be far better teaching than the stuff we do
most of the time.
XII.
Good Works (leave it be—they can’t save us from sins but they are the
fruit of faithfulness—super!
XIII.
Sin After Regeneration (leave it be—by all means! It is possible to fall into sin after becoming a Christian,
though many in the early church didn’t think so. They were wrong. A
Christian who sins [willfully, intentionally, with premeditation] simply must
repent to be restored. It is a good
statement. Maybe some would like a
statement that “expects” more frequent sin for believers, but this one is
enough.
XIV.
Sanctification: Initial, Progressive, Entire (I’d change this one by upgrading and
giving more attention to the gradual progressive elements of sanctification but
I’d insist on keeping the optimistic possibility of “entire sanctification”
where God can cut short the work that might take years or decades and He performs
in a miracle moment what might [normally] take many years to accomplish through
the gradual process. Why would I change
this when I am known to be an “exponent” of holiness in more traditional
ways? I’d change it to promote holiness
among our people and pastors. Really! I believe that God can entirely and
completely cleanse a person and fill them with power. In a moment! But I also realize that most Christians (and
most Wesleyans) think we grow gradually, slowly and painfully toward becoming “fully
devoted follower of Jesus Christ” (Hybels).
I’d be satisfied to upgrade our insistence on the gradual quest for
holiness so long as we hold out the wonderful promise that there is a way God
can “finish the work.” I think this is one of the best candidates for
“re-minting.” We ought to take the metal
from the present statement and re-cast it in a way that upgrades gradual
sanctification so that it naturally leads to seeking “entire” sanctification—becoming
a fully devoted follower of Jesus Christ. This one may not pass muster any easier than inerrancy though.
Some might say, “You’re softening your stance on entire sanctification.” In truth we’d be making our stance more like
John Wesley’s (though less like my own stance, and that of Phoebe Palmer). Of course I’d fight vigorously against any
stance that eliminated Wesley’s (and even today’s United Methodists!) stance
that dumped “Christian Perfection” (terrible word) or “Entire Sanctification”
(also a terrible word) leaving out the possibility of a complete and
radical transformation through the Holy Spirit. So, if I don’t prefer the technical-but-misunderstood term, Christian
perfection (Methodist statement) or entire Sanctification (Wesleyan)
what word would I use? Who knows—maybe the
non-technical “fully devoted follower of Jesus Christ” but that would have no precedence in
doctrine so we’d always be explaining it in future generations. “Sanctification” at least is a known term to
all doctrine and theology through history.
XV.
The Gifts of the Spirit (leave it be—we take no pot shots at Charismatics here,
and I know of no tongues-speaking Charismatic who would not agree fully with
this statement too.)
XVI.
The Church (leave it be—a great article!)
XVII.
The Sacraments: Baptism and the Lord's Supper (leave it be—though many
Wesleyans need to read it and understand how the sacraments are “means of
grace” not just meaningless rituals.
Through them ”He works within us to quicken, strengthen and confirm
our faith.”
XVIII.
The Second Coming of Christ (We probably should remove the word ”imminent” though, like the
term “inerrancy” only those who really know the implications of the term really
care. People who take these statements
lightly (treating them like they click the “I agree” box on software licenses)
would consider quibbling over “imminent” silly—but those who treat these
statements seriously usually would be happy to be rid of this narrowing term
that seem to eliminate some folk’s end times views.
XIX.
The Resurrection of the Dead (leave it be—a nice open
statement that doesn’t make people line up with one or another of the positions
on “end times.”
XX.
The Judgment of All Persons (leave it be)
XXI.
Destiny (leave it be—though it excludes someone who believes God
has chosen who will go to hell and heaven and elevates our chice. But Billy Graham could sign off on this
statement, however, as would most Baptists, only a “black coffee Calvinist”
couldn’t.
OK I chose to fish (or did I just “cut bait?”) Whatever—I did my homework. Have you done yours? How would you change the Articles of
Religion? Do your homework too. I don’t have much sympathy for people in the
church who grumble about their denomination yet don’t do their own
homework. If you don’t like it write
out your own agenda. Open up a blog and post it. Or if you’re
a newbee type Wesleyan go post it on “emergent
Wesleyans” site. And if you fancy
denominational rulers are out there seeking to burn people like you at the
stake, open up an anonymous blog and
post it with no name. It is your
denomination and you can suggest anything you want (in attempting to make
changes at least). Hey, I used to sit
on these boards and committees and those folk are [mostly] thinking people who will
listen to other thinking people. If you
care about these things quit moaning and go do your homework! Raise the issues in a thoughtful way. Run it up the flagpole. I dare you! If you do (and most of you won’t) send me your web address and
I’ll post the website. It’s your
choice—you can moan and grumble or you can help the leaders of your
denomination make these decisions. If
you don’t like my suggestions make your own.
Keith
Drury January 25, 2005
For reference see the articles
of Religion at the denominational website
Next: How I would change the “Membership Commitments”
[1] We actually have four—our constitution also has
“Elementary Principles” but nobody ever pays much attention to them and they
seem to conflict with the membership commitments—for instance we state “No person who
loves the Lord Jesus Christ, and obeys the gospel of God our Savior, ought to
be deprived of church membership” which seems to state conversion is the only
requirement for membership yet the “Membership Commitments” have gone a “far
piece” beyond just conversion!
[2] Some categories are easier to change than others—some are “constitutional” requiring an elaborate process of national (even international) votes which are followed by a “states rights” process of amending by conferences—a long and safe process ensuring nobody makes substantive changes without careful thought. Other categories are “statutory” law and can be changed with a simple vote at a general conference which is held every four years. This is a wise system and I like it, though many new members do not recognize the several categories of “church law.”