Maxie Dunnam had made a passionate appeal for the defeat of most of the proposed contitutional admendments on YouTube. Now that the majority of Annual Conferences have had the opportunity to vote of these, it has become apparent that all of the most controversial ones are headed toward defeat. Dunnam has recently released a statement about the apparent disconnect between those who are in leadership positions in the church and the women and men who live out their faith through the UMC.
Below is a "Reader's Digest" version of his statement. To read the entire statement click here (PDF File)
In l859, John Henry Newman wrote an article entitled "On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine." It was printed in a Roman Catholic periodical, The Rambler, of which Newman was the editor. Newman not only affirmed the critical role of laity in the church, he insisted that the consensus of the faithful may preserve important doctrines even when the bishops fail. Newman made the case that there is lodged in the Church; the Body of Christ which is comprised primarily of laity, a depository of profound practical theological wisdom.
If the Roman Catholics can positively entertain that notion, how much more should we be able to do so as Protestants who champion the priesthood of all believers and the ministry of the whole people of God?
I believe our recent dealing with the Constitutional Amendments is related in part to this issue. Enough of the votes on these amendments have been reported by the annual conferences to make it possible to reasonably know the results. The sense of the faithful has been registered, not alone in terms of laity, but faithful lay and clergy across the connection.
Let me quickly register the fact that the doctrine of the church is not to be established by popular vote. That's the reason our General Conference, though it is the final authority for the church's life and ministry, cannot change our Articles of Religion and Confession of Faith. However, how our doctrines are lived out in the concrete realties of life and ministry are determined in large part by the sense of the faithful.
How could the General Conference approve what the church has now overwhelmingly refused to ratify? Could it be that we simply did not take enough time for study, prayer, and holy conferencing to discern the sense of the faithful? Could it be that ideological interest groups and small geographic areas of the church dominate the organizations and structures of influence? Or, could it be that the way the issues were brought to General Conference was prejudiced?
I'm thinking particularly of the amendments related to worldwide nature of the church.
These amendments came out of a non-representative task force and were brought to the General Conference endorsed by the Council of Bishops and approved by the Connectional Table. Somewhere there is a disconnect...either in communication or in leadership. As I understand it, the vote of the Connectional Table was 75% in favor of the worldwide nature amendments. Early reports indicate that the vote of the church may be just the opposite...60 to 75% in opposition. Where is the disconnect here? How representative of the church is this body, and to whom do they pay most attention?
Another amendment of particular interest is the amendment that would change paragraph IV in the constitution. This amendment was "pitched" as an effort to open the doors of the church to everyone. The church is already open to everyone, but there are requirements for membership. It was clear from the beginning, though some proponents tried to disguise it, that this was another effort on the part of a passionate minority to undermine the church's position on the practice of homosexuality. At the last report, the amendment had not received 50% of the vote, when 66.7% is needed.
How long will bishops, pastors, seminaries, and general boards continue to force an issue which diverts focus, resources and energy from mission and ministry? Does the sense of the faithful not matter? Isn't there a measure of arrogance in a small part of the body continuing to passionately push their convictions which they know threaten the vitality and unity of the church?
I believe the vote on the amendments is a positive vote for the church, reflecting the "sense of the faithful." If we are going to fulfill our mission "to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world," then we must respect the integrity of the faithful in order to engage them in our kingdom ministry.
Comments