GC 2020 – More on the Common Core

Frank Holbrook 2 GC 2020

In several posts concerning GC 2020, I have suggested that new expressions should commit to a shared common core. The main posts are An Alternate Approach to Unity – An Effort to Avoid Ruling from the Grave  and 1784 – The Christmas Gift that Keeps on Giving .  I also have identified the Common Core identified in the Report on the Commission on the Way Forward as model for defining the Common Core:

“The Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds; Articles of Religion and Confession of Faith; General Rules; The Wesley Hymns; Disciplined Engagement with Scripture; Works of Piety, Mercy and Justice; Sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist; Small Group Accountability and Support (Class and Band Meetings); A Connectional Way of Life that includes Superintendency, Itineracy, and Conferencing. From “Wonder, Love and Praise”, three concepts: The saving love of God is meant for all people; the saving love of God is transformative; and the saving love of God creates community.” Id. at p. 2

Although the report identifies a Common Core, it’s arguably possible that reaching an agreement on Common Core values may be much more difficult than reaching agreement in the human sexuality debate. This post examines the Common Core issue and invites participants in GC 2020 to give the issue some prayerful reflection.

In response to the post 1784 – The Christmas Gift that Keeps on Giving I received the following comment:

I appreciate your thoughts. However, if the current UMC is to remain in existence, what would be its set of core beliefs? Here is why I ask that: I know on paper there are common core beliefs, but after spending years cruising the internet, listening to every voice from within the UMC I could find, what I discovered is that there are no common core beliefs that are currently driving the UMC. The Way Forward identified one of the core beliefs as being the Apostle’s and Nicene’s Creed. However, a petition was submitted to one of the two most recent regular GC’s that proposed the Nicene Creed should become an official part of the doctrine of The UMC; it was defeated in committee because there was no agreement as to whether or not the UMC is a creedal church. This was news to me since I had spent my life reciting the Apostle’s Creed in every Methodist/United Methodist Church I had ever attended. The whole problem with the UMC is it no longer has a specific identity beyond its polity. I have had to embrace the hard reality that to say I am United Methodist means absolutely nothing when it comes to identifying who I am as a Christian–it only describes the way a specific denomination functions.

Here is how Ret. Bishop Timothy Whitaker describes the problem with UMC in the forward to the book “Mainline or Methodist” by Scott Kisker:

“It is obvious to any observer that our church has changed considerably since its beginning. Change is to be expected since every living organism changes or dies. In a healthy organism, change over time does not destroy its identity. The problem with the United Methodist Church is that it seems to have lost its identity through all of its changes over the years. In other words, our church seems to have undergone mutations that disturbed the identity it possessed at its birth.”

I briefly responded to this comment but I think the comment deserves further consideration. It is a thoughtful question that should be posed not just to me, but to United Methodist Church as a whole.

One reason it deserves further highlighting is because I think it is a great example of Virtual Holy Conferencing. When one reads the comment, it’s clear it meets the principles of Christian Conferencing. It raises concerns and does so in a way that invites others into a respectful holy conversation.

But the main reason the comment deserves  further consideration is that it brings into sharp focus one of the issues driving the current dispute within the United Methodist Church. To what extent do we share core beliefs?

¶ 103 of the Book of Discipline has this general discussion regarding our Common Core:

The pioneers in the traditions that flowed together into The United Methodist Church understood themselves as standing in the central stream of Christian spirituality and doctrine, loyal heirs of the authentic Christian tradition. In John Wesley’s words, theirs was “the old religion, the religion of the Bible, the religion . . . of the whole church in the purest ages.” Their gospel was grounded in the biblical message of God’s self-giving love revealed in Jesus Christ.

Wesley’s portrayal of the spiritual pilgrimage in terms of “the scripture way of salvation” provided their model for experiential Christianity. They assumed and insisted upon the integrity of basic Christian truth and emphasized its practical application in the lives of believers.

This perspective is apparent in the Wesleyan understanding of “catholic spirit.” While it is true that United Methodists are fixed upon certain religious affirmations, grounded in the gospel and confirmed in their experience, they also recognize the right of Christians to disagree on matters such as forms of worship, structures of church government, modes of baptism, or theological explorations. They believe such differences do not break the bond of fellowship that ties Christians together in Jesus Christ. Wesley’s familiar dictum was, “As to all opinions which do not strike at the root of Christianity, we think and let think.”

But, even as they were fully committed to the principles of religious toleration and theological diversity, they were equally confident that there is a “marrow” of Christian truth that can be identified and that must be conserved. This living core, as they believed, stands revealed in Scripture, illumined by tradition, vivified in personal and corporate experience, and confirmed by reason. They were very much aware, of course, that God’s eternal Word never has been, nor can be, exhaustively expressed in any single form of words.

They were also prepared, as a matter of course, to reaffirm the ancient creeds and confessions as valid summaries of Christian truth. But they were careful not to set them apart as absolute standards for doctrinal truth and error.

Beyond the essentials of vital religion, United Methodists respect the diversity of opinions held by conscientious persons of faith. Wesley followed a time-tested approach: “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity.”

The spirit of charity takes into consideration the limits of human understanding. “To be ignorant of many things and to be mistaken in some,” Wesley observed, “is the necessary condition of humanity.” The crucial matter in religion is steadfast love for God and neighbor, empowered by the redeeming and sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit.

There is a lot to unpack in those seven paragraphs from the discipline. Obviously they are a summary, not an extended theological dissertation. I believe most people taking the time to read this blog have a much deeper understanding of the issue than the BOD summary provides. I also believe that most people reading this post have a deeper and nuanced understanding of the issues than I do. As I comment further, I also recognize that “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.” With those disclaimers and an understanding of the risks I face, I’ll press on.

So using the metaphor employed by the BOD, “where have our traditions flowed together” in the last 50 years? Isn’t that the question the commenter is asking? Isn’t that a foundational question we all should ask? And isn’t that a question GC 2020 will be forced to confront if new expressions are required to adhere a mutual Common Core? I suspect that many plans currently under discussion  “kick the can down the road.”  That can kicking occurs when plans don’t address the Common Core divide that apparently exists in the denomination.  But by failing to face the issue, aren’t we sowing the seeds for another dispute or series of disputes as the new expressions grow and mature?

As I’ve read Kevin Watson’s book Old or New School Methodism?, one of the conclusions I’ve reached is that the driving force of the separation discussed in the book was a difference over prioritizing foundational values within the Common Core of the Methodist Episcopal Church. On one side of the division, priority was given to Wesley’s preachings regarding personal Holiness and Sanctification. On the other side of the separation, the priority was given to what Wesley termed the Catholic Spirit. Although I haven’t seen anyone describe our current debate in these terms, our debate shares many of these same features. For many, the debate over the definition of marriage is a holiness issue, to others the current definition is a rejection of the Catholic Spirit. Essentially, we disagree over the priority of several Common Core values which are constantly in tension. This appears to be the reason that there may be no middle ground where everyone can reside in unity.

By suggesting a starting point for a Common Core I wasn’t attempting a back door maneuver to get the GC to somehow adopt and endorse the Nicene Creed or any other value identified in the report.  The commenter above reminded me that some could attribute that motive to my suggestion for a Common Core requirement. However, my reference to the Way Forward report was intended as a starting point; it was not intended to be a litmus test. But it does raise the question that many may wish to avoid. What is our current Common Core?

My pastor recently shared with “my” congregation an anecdote that illustrates our current state. In one of his sermons he observed that sometimes while he is on vacation he attends another United Methodist Church. He shared that that church was much like my congregation. But he noted that the church he visits doesn’t use the Apostles Creed in worship. He said that the church refused to recite the creed because it includes the credal statement “from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.” This congregation refused to believe and affirm that Jesus is judgmental. Apparently, that is a church that would have difficulty accepting the Apostles Creed as part of its Common Core. I assume there may be Annual Conferences and potential new expressions that would share that position.

There are many who probably don’t want to engage in a discussion of our Common Core; because when one begins to tug on that thread it is possible that the whole reason for covenantal connection unravels. We currently are focused on whether we can be in covenant and connection with one another when we disagree about human sexuality. I’d respectfully submit that it is a much deeper division when we disagree on what our BOD describes as “our living core” and the “essentials.” It appears that we may have bumped up against the limits of the Catholic Spirit.

If GC 2020 decides on a Common Core it will have to be done by consensus. Let’s engage in a thought experiment and assume that GC 2020 concludes that the Apostles Creed and Nicene Creed are optional beliefs, not part of a Common Core. One new expression might adopt those credal statements as part of its Common Core in addition to the mandated minimum Common Core. Another new expression may choose to make the creeds optional and a third might explicitly reject the statements based on “reason and experience.” Remember, the Common Core requirement is a minimum and does not prevent a new expression from adding elements to its Common Core. If an Annual Confernce is faced with joining one of the three new expressions I honestly believe that many members will prioritize a  new expression’s position on its common core. A position on a new expression’s common core  will be more important – and also much more enlightening – than the new expression’s stance on human sexuality. It’s the main reason I believe that new expressions should not be United Methodist Church Versions 1, 2, and 3, with the only difference being their differing views on human sexuality. New expressions should be natural descendants of the United Methodist Church, not cloned versions with different human sexuality genes spiced into their DNA.

When I suggest GC 2020 should adopt a Common Core requirement for new expressions, please don’t misunderstand me. By using the Way Forward report as a starting point I’m not advocating for inclusion of any particular “Common Core” value. That is not the purpose of these posts. Their purpose is to facilitate the thought experiment and the Holy Conferencing that needs to accompany our current debate. On the other hand, please understand that I do have thoughts on what is an appropriate Common Core and will be willing to advocate when the forum is proper.  To everything there is a season, this is the season for contemplative reflection and discernment.

So what is our Common Core in 2020? Can we have that discussion, or does a discussion of the topic highlight our differences rather than our supposed unity? Will our inability to agree to a Common Core result in a failure to create new expressions? Will our failure to agree to a Common Core be a genetic defect we pass on to the new expressions that are formed?  These are all questions worth considering.