wfn.org | Commentary: General Conference offers reasons for hope

[NewsDesk <NewsDesk@UMCOM.UMC.ORG>]

June 30, 2000  News media contact: Tim Tanton·(615)742-5470·Nashville, Tenn.
10-21-71BP{311}

NOTE:  A head-and-shoulders photograph of the Rev. Joe Peabody is available.

A UMNS Commentary
By the Rev. Joe Peabody*

I came away from Cleveland feeling hopeful about the future of the United
Methodist Church. 

That may seem strange in a year when demonstrators invaded the conference
and bishops were arrested protesting the actions of the delegates. My
optimism arises, not from a win-lose perspective, but from what I see as a
dramatic shift in the focus of the conversation concerning homosexuality.
Four, eight and 20 years ago, it appeared that liberals and conservatives
were content to throw their points at each other, no matter 
who was hurt and heedless that it didn't help.

This year, there is clear evidence that a new spirit of scriptural inquiry
has modified the tone of our talk. As in other years, delegates were deluged
with materials from both sides of the issue with personal stories and calls
for prayer and discernment. The new thing was a call for serious wrestling
with the scriptural data, intimating that obedience to that witness must be
the determining factor.

Southern Methodist University sent delegates a videotape of two biblical
scholars wrestling with what the Bible says about human sexuality. Maxie
Dunnam, president of Asbury Theological Seminary, sent out a book by John R.
Stott, a noted English Bible scholar. Other materials sought to explore the
issue not from the humanist view of "rights" and "the sweep of history" but
from the perspective of obedience to the Word of God. 

At long last, the debate has shifted to the ground where many in the
conservative wing of the church have felt that it must be all along. Many
feel as I do, that I may not always be right in my opinions and conclusions,
but I must try to be obedient to the biblical 
witness as far as I understand it. With John Wesley, it is our prime
allegiance.

A second hopeful signal out of General Conference is the little-ballyhooed
decision to include a course in evangelism among the requirements for
ordination. For years, our seminaries offered few, if any, courses in
evangelism. For 25 years, the Foundation For Evangelism has worked quietly
to raise funds to endow professorships in evangelism in our 13 seminaries.
As of this writing, all but two have professors in place.  

Surely the church, whose stated purpose is to make disciples of all people,
will be better served by pastors who have given intelligent and scholarly
reflection to the methods and means of accomplishing this central task.

A third signal for hope is the decision to take a major step in the
direction of fairness in determining representation at General Conference.
In the early days, only clergy went to conferences. For a hundred years
after lay members began attending, laity participation was based on the
number of clergy in a conference. In 1968, a new formula was devised that
took account of both clergy and laity. This year, the General Conference
placed most of the weight on the laity factor. Maybe in four or eight more
years we can create a formula in which delegates at General Conference are
truly representative of the membership in the church.

A fourth occasion for hopefulness came when the Judicial Council responded
positively and decisively to the question of whether or not annual
conferences are obligated to uphold the instructions of the Book of
Discipline. Actions in the spring had seriously challenged the core values
of the United Methodist system. The Judicial Council reminded us that we are
a connected connection, accountable to each other, linked and bound by our
joint agreements.

A final area of interest is a cause for concern. In 1988, we adopted a
wonderful new hymnal containing liturgy that needed explanation. In 1992, we
asked for a statement on baptism to support our liturgy. In 1996, we adopted
a statement on baptism that was out of harmony with our constitution. Now,
the 2000 General Conference has passed legislation on to our annual
conferences that will change the constitution to fit the statement on
baptism. This seems backwards.

We wrote our liturgy. We wrote a theology to explain it. Now we have to
change our constitution to fall in line with the theological statement we
adopted to explain our liturgy. Maybe what we need is to look again at our
understanding of baptism. 

When I was in school, we were taught that Wesley's teaching on the
prevenient grace of God kept us from falling into the sacramental corner on
one side of the theological spectrum or the Anabaptist pew on the other. I
was taught that United Methodists offer the Christian world a third way of
understanding baptism, modeled on the Jewish use of circumcision as the sign
of the three-way covenant between God and the child and the community. I,
for one, hope that a lot of United Methodist pastors dig out their dusty
notes from "Church and Sacraments" and defeat the constitutional amendment,
which will come to the annual conferences in 2001. If we do, it will be
another sign for hope.
 
The United Methodist Church is by no means united in its thought on all
things, but the essential union stands. There is room beneath this umbrella
for many opinions that do not strike at the root of our faith. There is even
room for honest and faithful disagreement and dialogue. 

# # #

*Peabody is senior pastor of First United Methodist Church in Marietta, Ga.

Commentaries provided by United Methodist News Service do not necessarily
represent the opinions or policies of UMNS or the United Methodist Church.

*************************************
United Methodist News Service
Photos and stories also available at:
http://umns.umc.org