{Note from the author: this piece should in no way be understood as my take on the worth of anyone within the LGBTQ spectrum or even an understanding about ministry to and with people along the spectrum. I have written about that previously and would be glad to share if you're interested. This is a piece that strongly critiques the progressive teaching taking place in the church today. It is meant to inform those who are unacquainted with these ideas and to provoke further action and dialogue among those who are already thoroughly informed.}
I recently encountered a perspective which I have considered for some time. While watching David Watson’s speech to orthodox evangelicals in the Virginia Annual Conference he boldly proclaimed that “expressive individualism” has “run amuck in the United Methodist Church.” Prior to listening to Dr. Watson I had many thoughts about why I was concerned and opposed to progressive teachings in the United Methodist Church. His message helped to crystallize for me why we orthodox Methodists are so concerned and why we need to be bolder in our denunciation of progressive teachings. The general tenor of the message Dr. Watson shared in Virginia pointed to the reality that this “expressive individualism” has supplanted ecclesiological authority in the message and actions of many United Methodist leaders. He even mentioned his experience with one United Methodist pastor who refuted the incarnation of Christ by quoting Marcus Borg saying, “a finger pointing at the moon is not the moon.” The pastor was saying Jesus was not the very Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, but just a man pointing people to God.
This is not the Christian faith. Progressive teaching is a modern blending of some
of the heresies which have plagued the church in one form or another throughout
much of our 2000 year existence. Antinomianism,
Arianism, and Pelagianism are just some of the old heresies raising their
respective heads in the progressive teaching within the United Methodist Church
and other denominations. First, let me say I know many United
Methodists, even traditional United Methodists, who have a hard time thinking
of Pelagius as a heretic. There are many
reasons for this, but one of their main issues is the concept of “perfection,”
which Pelagius seems to share with John Wesley.
I believe there are major differences between Pelagius and Wesley
regarding their understandings of perfection.
Wesley’s concept of perfection is rooted in grace, whereas I think
Pelagius’ ideas were more rooted in human determination and will. Some disagree and are likely to tell you
differently, so I don’t want to belabor the point by making too much out of the
person of Pelagius. The point is that
whether Pelagius was a heretic or not the teaching known as Pelagianism, as it
was understood by the church, was heretical.
It taught moral perfection, as a result of human determination and will, was possible. Grace was not needed in order to achieve salvation.[i] Pelagianism was and is an attack on the
doctrine of Original Sin, the teaching that humans are born with the infection
of sin through our first parents, Adam and Eve. Interestingly, progressive teaching turns this
on its head when it tells us people are born oriented toward homosexual
behavior. It fails to acknowledge Original
Sin as the most biblical and theological answer for the nature of such an
orientation. Such teaching expects
believers to accept that one’s homosexual, bisexual or transexual orientation at birth, and anytime
thereafter really, is a good gift of God. This doesn't agree with the Bible which plainly states that certain sexual desires can be and in many instances are "an exchange of the
truth of God for a lie.”[ii] It is a complete denial that sin as an
infection is part of the human condition we all have to deal with, and the
reason we stand in need of salvation through Christ.
Arianism, was an attack on the nature of
Christ as the second person of the Trinity, the unique son of God. Arius taught that Christ was created and
therefore not eternal thus not God in the flesh. He was merely someone, created prior to the
rest of us, who pointed us to God.[iii] We see this in the statements of people like
the pastor Dr. Watson encountered who equated Christ to “a finger pointing at
the moon.” According to much of
progressive teaching we are supposed to believe the faith Christ taught was not
a faith that looked for salvation in his life, death and resurrection, but only
in the teachings and lifestyle he espoused.
His death was only an example, and his resurrection only a spiritual
reality not rooted in historical fact. This
was the heretical position of former Bishop Joe Sprague of the Norther Illinois
Conference in the 1990s and early 2000s, for which he was charged but
acquitted.
When this false teaching about Christ’s
nature is fleshed out we begin to see how neatly this fits with the revival of
Pelagianism and its refutation of Original Sin. If there is no original sin then there is no
need of salvation in the historical death and resurrection of Jesus. People are essentially good without the
infection of sin and have no need for a cure.
This fits fairly well with a neo-Arianism which doesn’t provide
one. There is only an example to follow,
which encourages emotional spiritual expression and work for societal acceptance, but
little personal behavioral transformation and in the end no real social
transformation.
This all of course has given birth to
Antinomianism, which primarily views grace as a license to sin as it discards
any concern about the use of the moral law of Scripture.[iv] John Wesley attacked the antinomianism which
was so prevalent in the various teachings of the church in 18th
century England. Whether it was among
some of the Moravians who dispensed with all the means of grace until the
Spirit moved them, or among the Calvinists whom he thought encouraged
it, Wesley countered antinomian teaching by demanding that Methodists seek
personal, behavioral and social transformation through participating in all the
means of grace, and looking to the Spirit to grant them power to fulfill the
moral law.[v] When entire Annual
Conferences pass resolutions to resist orthodox Christian teaching and affirm all
expressions of sexuality across the LGBTQ spectrum there is little doubt
antinomianism is alive and well in United Methodism and we are out of step with
our historical fathers of the faith.
This is not the historic Christian
teaching which says the power and presence of the Holy Spirit are given to
generate new birth and new energy for holy living. It is heretical and regressive, not progressive
and new. It is time orthodox Christians
come together and condemn this heresy which plagues the church. Separation is desirable and necessary at this
point in the church’s life, but on what basis can we call for separation unless
we’re willing to say this non-orthodox teaching is heretical? If it is just a difference of opinion, as one
leading seminary professor has suggested, we have no basis to call for
separation, and I’m afraid won’t get much of a hearing from the average person
in the pew. But if we explain it and
call it what it is then we have a solid foundation on which to stand and I
believe faithful United Methodists will rally to us.
It goes without saying that condemning
people is never our prerogative, but condemning false teaching is the
responsibility of faithful Christian leaders.
Did not Paul condemn any gospel that refuted his own even if it should
be taught by an angel from heaven?[vi] He urged Timothy to “command certain men not
to teach false doctrines,”[vii]
and to “correct, rebuke and encourage – with great patience and careful
instruction.”[viii] Even Jesus instructed his followers to "beware
of false prophets" and find ways to provide correction to one another.[ix] It is our duty not only to treat everyone
with dignity and respect but most certainly to condemn such teaching as heresy
and to inform faithful United Methodists about what exactly is at stake.
[i] B. L. Shelley, “Pelagius,
Pelagianism” in Evangelical Dictionary of
Theology, 2nd ed., ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 897.
[ii]
Romans 1:25
[iii] V. L. Walter, “Arius,
Arianism” in Evangelical Dictionary of
Theology, 2nd ed., ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 95.
[iv] R. D. Linder, “Antinomianism”
in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd
ed., ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 70-71.
[v]
Richard P. Heitzenrater, Wesley and the
People Called Methodists (Nashville TN: Abingdon Press, 1995) 106-107.
[vi] Galatians
1:8
[vii]
1 Timothy 1:3
[viii]
2 Timothy 4:2
[ix]
Matthew 7:15; 18:15-17
No comments:
Post a Comment