Park Slope United Methodist Church

New Testament Scripture: Mark 2: 12 - 27 (edited)

One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grain fields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. The Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?" He answered, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions." Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for humankind, not humankind for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."

Introduction

Our New Testament reading this morning comes from the 2nd chapter of Mark. This is the very beginning of Jesus' ministry. Mark was the first Gospel written - only about 60 years after Jesus' death - and was based on conversations Mark had with both Peter and Paul. At this point in his life, Jesus had not even picked all the Disciples yet.

In the 1st Chapter, we have Jesus' Baptism, his temptation by Satan in the desert, and his first miracle - curing the leper (Wesley's comment in the margin of his Bible is: "Jesus makes us clean from our leprosy of sin!")

The 2nd Chapter starts with the story of Christ healing a paralytic. You know the story. They lower the man down through the smoke hole in the roof of the house, and Jesus heals him saying: "Son, your sins are forgiven." Some Pharisees are there, and Jesus' words hit them like a thunderbolt. Immediately they are thinking: "He's blaspheming. Only God can forgive sins."

This is something like a Lay person preaching in August. "Where is his authority?" For Jesus, this event was to show his authority as God's son to forgive sins. This event is called the First Offense, and from then on the Pharisees began plotting against him. Wesley's Bible notes are very interesting. He writes:

"See whence the first offense cometh! As yet not one of the plain unlettered people were offended. They all rejoiced in the light, till these men of learning came, to put darkness for light, and light for darkness. Wo to all such blind guides! Good had it been for these if they had never been born. O God, let me never offend one of thy simple ones! Sooner let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth!"

Then comes today's scripture - harvesting and eating grain on the Sabbath. And, what does Jesus say? "The Sabbath is for humankind!" We're talking about what comes first: the deed, the action - the man is here, heal him; or the authority, the religious laws - wait, it must fit a certain order and expectation. This is the same issue we're talking about today - the role of doctrine in the church.

A core belief of mine: Religious Tolerance

I'm not absolutely sure that my belief system - liberal Christianity - is God's only will for humankind. I know in the depths of my own being that Jesus is my Savior. But, I accept that there are other possibilities, and I desire to co-exist with persons who have other belief systems - whether Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, or fundamentalist Christians. In particular, I desire to co-exist with other United Methodists who may not share my views about United Methodist doctrines and beliefs.

To me, it would be sinful to make a United Methodist pastor take an oath that she believes in the virgin birth, the physical resurrection, solely heterosexual unions, the sinfulness of homosexuality or any other specific doctrine of faith, on pain of expulsion from the clergy. Yet, this type of oath has been implemented in the Southern Baptist Convention after its takeover by that denomination's conservative wing.

Starting in the 1970's, the Southern Baptists went through internal turmoil due to conflict between moderates and fundamentalists. The more liberal wing lost the battle. In January 2002, Jerry Rankin, the President of the Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, made a request for all missionaries to sign a loyalty oath to use the Baptist Faith & Message as their standard for ministry. Never before have Baptists adopted a statement of faith that claims to be an "instrument of doctrinal accountability."

Consider Sarah, Joshua and Nathanael Ballew, a Baptist missionary family who for 7 years served in Macau, China where less than 1% of the population are Christian. For over 16 months, the pressure on them to sign the loyalty oath was constant. Listen to their words:

"The Mission Board leadership has demanded that all missionary personnel sign the following NEW statement:

"In accountability to the International Mission Board and Southern Baptists, I agree to carry out my responsibilities in accordance with and not contrary to the current Baptist Faith and Message as adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention.

Signature ______________________________
Date _________________________________

"Personally, to sign such a statement would amount to signing a creed, cheapening the role of the Bible in our lives and taking us away from the practice of "Scripture Alone". The charges leveled against us have been (1) failing to be accountable and (2) holding personal beliefs which are inconsistent with those held by Southern Baptists. Both of these charges are false.. . .

"Even in President Jerry Rankin's last letter to us, he commends our service and notes that he finds no place where we are in contradiction with the Baptist Faith & Message. In all our years of service among Southern Baptists (serving the local church, serving through college ministries, serving as Journeyman missionaries, serving as seminary students, serving as Home Missionaries), no one has ever accused us of ministering in any way which is contrary to what Southern Baptists believe. Unless Southern Baptists have changed their beliefs to be something other than baptistic, our beliefs are still consistent with theirs and this accusation is false.

"In the end, the reason for our termination is only our decision to not sign the creedal Statement of Accountability, which by the standard of the Missionary Board's leadership, makes us no longer fit to serve as Southern Baptist Missionaries.

"But in the midst of all of these feelings we have been experiencing tremendous Peace, Grace, Provision, Protection, Guidance and Love from our Lord Jesus Christ. He has been so faithful to us. He has also used many of you both far and near to encourage us through prayers and loving support. As we move ahead, we continue to choose to forgive those that have participated in this wrong action against us and God's Kingdom work. For to forgive is also obedience to Christ."

In June, 2003, the Ballew family returned to the U.S.

What About the United Methodist Battle?

This past Spring, a group of liberal UM's released a book called United Methodism @ Risk: A Wake Up Call. For anyone interested in what's going on in the denomination, it is truly a Wake Up Call. For me, it reads like a novel. According to the book: For the past 20 years, a battle has been going on within the United Methodist Church. Much of its focus comes from a non-profit organization called the Institute for Religion and Democracy ("IRD") in Washington, D.C. During that time it has spent $5.5 Million seeking to establish archconservative control in 3 denominations: the Presbyterian (USA), Episcopal and UM churches. Some of you, like me, may be receiving its newsletter, UMAction, which it sends free to 315,000 United Methodists - many of whom don't request it.

Eighty percent of its income in the first decade came from secular corporations and foundations. By 2001, its yearly revenue was $1.1 Million. While it only has a staff of 9 persons, it leverages its impact by working through what are called "conservative renewal groups." It's agenda was described by NY Times religion editor Peter Steinfels as "intended to advance a distinct political agenda while claiming only a broad Christian concern." That agenda includes:

o On Marriage & sexuality - opposing feminism, gay rights and abortion;

o Opposing environmental initiatives such as the Kyoto Accords and the "What Would Jesus Drive" campaign;

o Opposing governmental responsibility for a safety net for the poor; and

o Supporting the war in Iraq, the war on terrorism, the war in Palestine, and vigorously opposing those who do not.

In a larger sense, the IRD is a part of a broad, conservative Christian movement over the past two decades that has moved from primarily focusing on saving souls to acting politically. It's mission is to change the "permanent governing structure" of the three mainline churches "so they can help renew the wider culture of our nation." In other words, its goal is a political takeover of the religious denominations by the extreme right to support the conservative political agenda.

The IRD's foremost partnership in the UMC is a renewal group called Good News, which goes back to the 1960's, and which advocates traditional doctrinal beliefs such as the literal truth of the Bible, Virgin birth of Christ, Christ's atonement for our sins, Christ's physical resurrection, and the second coming of Christ. It views the 1972 General Conference as a low point in Methodist history because it approved abortion and adopted the statement of theological pluralism. It uses wedge issues to marginalize opponents and attract supporters. It uses rhetorical aggressiveness to rally people. Recent examples are:

o attacking feminism by continuing to focus on the Re-Imagining Conference of 1993, now a decade old, which employed the biblically based theological concept of Sophia, which refers to the "feminine side" of Christian theology, by labeling it "goddess worship."

o attacking Bishop Sprague of Chicago whose recent book and speeches challenge the tenants of fundamentalism. He is been labeled a heretic and formal charges of heresy have been brought against him.

The IRD, Good News and other "renewal groups" are uninterested in genuine dialogue, desiring rather to impose their belief systems on the target churches.

Another technique is political organizing within the church, especially at the General Conference, and to a lesser extent at the Annual Conferences. At the 2000 General Conference, Good News had a "war room" of 80 people. Not only did they hold the line on the most contentious issue, homosexuality, but they brought forth a stealth attack that enacted a new formula for allocating delegates which is expected to strengthen the Good News forces at next year's General Conference.

Good New's General Conference agenda has 51 points. Two of them are: require all clergy to take new vows which meet conservative doctrinal standards; and require seminary faculty to sign an "affirmation" of classical theology. Doesn't this sound remarkably similar to the Southern Baptists? Here is the review of UM@Risk by a Good News magazine editorial:

"The book is critical of Good News for seeking 'to mandate fidelity on the part of clergy' to what we call 'classical Christianity.' To that we are guilty as charged. We believe pastors should be faithful to the church's doctrinal standards. And so, we would add, does The Book of Discipline. At the heart of the disagreement of the book UM@Risk with evangelicals is the role of doctrine in our church. . .. For those of us involved in evangelical renewal, what really is @ risk today is our Wesleyan doctrinal heritage." (Emphasis added.)

Now you might say, that seems like genteel dialogue! Where's the spit you speak of? In responding to the publication of UM@Risk, Good New's president said: the book "with its tone of near hysteria, smacks of a desperate attempt to prop up a fading, liberal viewpoint in the church. The book is a sustained attack from the old-guard denominational establishment whose views have been dominant for the past 30 or more years, during which time our church has lost nearly 3 million members." Mr. Heidinger called United Methodism @ Risk "little more than a third-rate, attempted exposé with almost embarrassingly poor scholarship and numerous inaccuracies." Another conservative critic called the book "yellow journalism" and "theological McCarthyism." The McCarthyism charge is especially ironic given that it is Good News that promotes loyalty oaths.

This is a good example of rhetorical aggressiveness. There is no attempt to dialogue; no opening is left for discussion. Nor are the substance of the book's evidence and arguments ever addressed. Rather, the book is dismissed out of hand.

Some of these folks even oppose to the current United Methodist major media effort, because the theme is: "Open hearts, Open minds, Open doors." They don't believe in it!

Where Do We Go From Here?

What the book argues for is "Wesleyan dialogue." This basically means, the church continues to accept "different theological strokes for different folks" - particularly among its clergy, and rejects any effort at the General Conference and the United Methodist church generally to enforce the idea of doctrinal purity.

Cynthia Astle, Editor of the UM Reporter, an independent publication, calls this a battle of extremists. "United Methodists should not be deceived by smokescreens of 'doctrine' or 'homosexuality' or 'abortion' or any other topic. What's really at issue is power - power to say what the church believes and power to enforce adherence to what those in power say the church believes. . . . Clinging to life in the middle are those of us who fear doctrinal tyranny as much as we fear dictatorial tolerance without moral judgment." She proposes a "third way" for the 2004 General Conference - to abandon our General Conference legislative processes in favor of a time of prayerful discernment; that the 2004 General Conference adopt no legislation, only a budget.

Responding to Ms. Astle, Rev. Kathryn Johnson, Executive Director of the Methodist Federation for Social Action (which is our own so-called "extremist" group), while affirming her unabashedly progressive beliefs, said she would be willing to consider the moratorium idea. Will it "accomplish the goal of discerning and alining ourselves with God's will for the church?" she asks? Her worry: "We might just be putting off hard decisions for another four years."

Personally, I think the battle is about dialogue vs. power. It's about being a church that tells us what we must believe, vs. one that lets us hold our own beliefs. By "us," I don't just mean laity, but especially our clergy and missionaries, allowing freedom of the pulpit and of professors teaching seminarians. I'm rather pessimistic about where the denomination is going. I'm not sure that the denomination has the will to fend off a conservative take-over. Social movements often aren't stopped until they become dominate, run their course and then lose their effectiveness and appeal.

In any case, social change generally comes out of conflict, not out of status quo. In today's scripture, Jesus' disciples broke a law of the Sabbath by picking and eating grain in the field. When the Pharisees questioned him, he said: "The Sabbath was made for humankind, not humankind for the Sabbath." We are not ruled by rigid doctrines whatever name they are called. As my Dad put it, throughout Jesus' ministry, what came first was human need, not religious laws. Can we, both individually and as truly "united" Methodists, go and do likewise?

Let us pray:

Dear Lord, we pray for tolerance, diversity, dialogue, compassion, courage, guidance, social justice and action. But most of all, let not our will, but thy will, be done.