John Meunier on Social Principles and Doctrine
Our friend John Meunier has written an excellent post thinking about the Social Principles as doctrinal statements:
Maybe you disagree with these positions. Maybe you think the church should not engage in such advocacy of social engineering. Well, I’m sorry to say, the Book of Discipline has an answer for that, too.
We proclaim no personal gospel that fails to express itself in relevant social concerns; we proclaim no social gospel that does not include the personal transformation of sinners.
It is our conviction that the good news of the Kingdom must judge, redeem, and reform the sinful social structures of our tme. (Paragraph 101)
In other words, the General Conference of the United Methodist Church has made it a matter of church law that we engage with big social issues. That obviously does not require that every individual Christian and pastor do so – some are gifted for different ministries – but the UMC rejects categorically the idea that it leave government stuff to governments.
What do you think? Should the Social Principles be seen as doctrine? How do you approach these in your congregation — boldly as prophetic proclamations of God’s passion for justice, or with fear and trepidation, knowing that they can quickly get you in trouble with folks in your congregation? What difference does it make to see these statements as doctrine as opposed to a loose guide to ethics?
- jvoorhees's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Social Principles as doctrine.
I think it impossible for a body of 8 to 11 million members to have doctrine defined by a group of a few hundred, even if they are representitive of the body. In my area of Mississippi, where money is tight an pastors' salaries are being cut, the Bishop's letter, "In defense of Creation" was generally looked upon as "leftist-political in nature," addressing an issue which may not even be real, and one which the UMC should not be spending time and resources on. It is generally believed here that man did not cause climate change and can't do anything about it. (This does not mean that we are totally complacent on the issues of environmentalism). One social principle states (paraphrased) that the United Nations is the world's greatest hope for peace. This is thoroughly rejected as being secular humanistic. To sum it up, in my opinion the aprons of the tent can stretch only so far before they begin to rip.
talk to us, not for us
At some point, the Bishops of the church wrote a pastoral letter to the churches called "In Defense of Creation". It was an attempt to encourage us to think about the arms race, particularly about nuclear weapons. It was addressed to the church. We were able to hold a program on this in an extremely conservative area because we did not have to tell people that this was what they were supposed to think. It went well. I think people were changed and minds were opened.
Too often, the Book of Resolutions and the Boards and Agencies address the world as if 11 million UM's worldwide think xyz when a very small minority actually think that way. Don't do that. Speak to us, not for us! You might find people will listen.
umcal
Engage, but with caution
It depends on how you define engagement.
It is absolutely true that we as Christians, and as a church, should be involved in real-world issues and solutions, and that we should be active and involved citizens.
But when we talk about becoming involved in great social issues, the very real risk is that the church (and this applies to churches at either end of the political spectrum) might confuse means with ends. "The church should stand for economic justice and ending poverty" becomes "the church should support such-and-such a program or such-and-such a law," even in cases where individual members may disagree honestly about whether or not that particular program or that particular law is the best way of achieving the Biblically-mandated end. And from there, it becomes an easy step to aligning the church with particular candidates or parties or political structures in a way that distracts from, rather than contributes to, the church's status as a voice of conscience.
I do believe the church must have a voice in social issues, but that voice must be used in a careful and judicious manner, and without condescension or self-righteousness towards anyone
---
John I. Carney
==========================================
http://lakeneuron.com