Personal conviction is more important than ordination vows. This concept tests the fabric of our united, connectional system. Faithful Methodists fear that, if this statement is true, ordained elders will have the ability to morally oppose the denomination that commissions them; the Book of Discipline—the glue of our connectional structure—will be consistently bypassed; and the wisdom of generations of Methodist titans will be undermined by modern cultural shifts. These would be valid concerns if not for one truth: these things are already happening. They are already a consistent part of our United Methodist reality. Few pastors agree with every aspect of United Methodist doctrine; many church leaders have only a rudimentary understanding of the contents of both the Book of Discipline and the Book of Resolutions (due, in part, to the text’s convoluted, grandiose language); and nearly every sect of Christendom shifts, to some degree, as society changes—most Christians abandoned self-flagellation long ago, thankfully. Personal conviction has always been more important than ordination vows, and those who demand polite, unconditional obedience to United Methodist doctrine are undermining the natural processes of progress.
Progress is the result of friction, and that social chafing is sometimes—if not always—painful and messy. Whether through violence or civil disobedience, social change is the result of individuals who stand against the status quo. Mary Dore, director of She’s Beautiful When She’s Angry, a feature-length documentary about women’s liberation in the 1960s, said simply, “You don’t make change by being polite and folding your hands—it doesn’t work that way.”1 In the United Methodist Church, those who wish to preserve various existing conditions often attempt to relegate protests, demonstrations, and civil disobedience to the periphery of our collective sight, thus ensuring that such discordant viewpoints have no real impact on the business of the day. This action, though sometimes well-intentioned, has two significant and negative implications: First, it implies that the opinions of those in the margins of the denomination are inherently less valuable than the opinions of those in the floor seats, and, second, it shows that we are unwilling to truly expose ourselves to the plights of the distressed.
Read Full Article »