by George Bailey.
‘The Methodist Church affirms both understandings and makes provision in its Standing Orders for them.’
The Constitutional Practice and Discipline of the Methodist Church, Standing Order 011A (1)
As a Methodist presbyteral minister, I have been both excited and challenged by this addition to Methodist Standing Orders in 2021. I do not want here to invite debate on the questions of marriage, human relationships and sexuality. I am not saying that talking about the main issues should not continue – indeed I am arguing precisely the opposite – but I have been reflecting on what it might mean for the Church to ‘affirm both understandings.’
I am in relationship with local churches that have differing attitudes to marriage and are in differing states with regard to decisions they have taken or will take – some registering to hold same sex marriages, and some not. The conversation in these congregations varies due to local context, theological convictions, cultural traditions, ecumenical relationships, and many other factors. It is also true, of course, that this diversity between and within congregations is apparent on many other aspects of Christian faith and practice. On this particular issue, we have stated an affirmation of two understandings (though in reality I perceive that there are at least several varied understandings), and I hope that our subsequent exploration of what that means might help us to better have integrity with regards to many other diverse attitudes.
For some years I have been influenced by two models for how scripture, doctrine and practice interact – the cultural-linguistic model of George Lindbeck[i] and the canonical-linguistic model of Kevin Vanhoozer.[ii] Vanhoozer critiques Lindbeck’s post-liberal model from a more evangelical perspective, but does acknowledge his indebtedness to Lindbeck’s core idea: the church embodies theology by learning a language and practices which are developed in response to the narrative of scripture, and church doctrines act as grammatical rules to structure this. Put simply, and somewhat hyperbolically, for Lindbeck the church is the culture which is the primary interpretative context for scripture, whereas, for Vanhoozer it is scripture which is the primary interpretative context for the performative theology of the church. However, Vanhoozer notes that Lindbeck actually ‘vacillates’ on this issue, and later in his career adopted a more open attitude to the sense of the text having priority over the interpreting community.[iii] Although it might be tempting to see these two sides of the debate as related to the two understandings affirmed by the Methodist Church, I hope that, what we could more helpfully strive for would be to keep them in tension (a healthy vacillation? or, better, a reciprocity?) and to explore a multiplicity of shapes for discipleship and congregational life.
Vanhoozer’s performance metaphor does recognise denominational diversity and invites extension to include diversity within a denomination. This is only a very brief sketch of the metaphor from his summary chapter, and I realise that our conceptions of possible range of diversity within the Christian Church may differ, but I still think the idea is helpful. He proposes different levels of performance in theatres of Christian theology. ‘While the Holy Spirit is the primary director who oversees the global production, it is the ‘pastor’ who bears the primary responsibility for overseeing local performances.’[iv] The pastor is supported by ‘creedal theology’ (i.e. based on the recognized early creeds, primarily the Nicene Creed) which acts like ‘masterpiece theatre’ – it seems he has in mind the idea of acclaimed directors and actors interpreting the script in different contexts across time – ‘to direct the local church into the way of the Scriptures and to relate the local church to previous great performances.’[v] Confessional theology is conceived as ‘regional theatre’, and several varieties may exist side by side. This may be seen as a divisive hindrance, but Vanhoozer insists that it helps ‘by mediating between the universal (catholic) and particular (local):[vi] ‘The confessional traditions are performance traditions, bearers of theo-dramatical rationality that combine elements of stabilization with elements of innovation.’[vii] This ‘unity-in-diversity’ is a strength ‘not only because it is the condition of theology’s being able to address different kinds of situations but also because it is the enabling condition of creative theological understanding.’[viii]
Are pastors (including in this term ministers and preachers) being called to ‘direct’ and support several congregations with distinctively different interpretations of the same script, and which relate in different ways to their contexts? Within the world of theatre this could be an exciting project with the potential to enhance everyone’s understanding of the one script as well as the varied contexts in which it is interpreted. So, might it be like that in the church? There is an even further level of unity-in-diversity to be added, which is within each congregation. Vanhoozer’s metaphor is based on an idealised single congregation with one pastor. Diverse congregations with diverse congregational characteristics, but served by the same minister, is a more realistic model in the British Methodist context. Rather than diversity leading to division, can we strive for unity-in-diversity, with mutual critical appreciation of, and mutual learning from, our multiple performances of the gospel?
[i] George Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1984.
[ii] Kevin J. Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical-Linguistic Approach to Christian Theology, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005.
[iii] Vanhoozer, p.166
[iv] ibid., p.449
[v] ibid., p.451
[vi] ibid., p.452
[vii] ibid., p.453
[viii] ibid.
[i] George Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1984.
[ii] Kevin J. Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical-Linguistic Approach to Christian Theology, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005.
[iii] Vanhoozer, p.166
[iv] ibid., p.449
[v] ibid., p.451
[vi] ibid., p.452
[vii] ibid., p.453
[viii] ibid.
Theology Everywhere 
None of us sees more than a glimpse of the fringes of God’s garment!
LikeLike
Helpful and interesting material especially for ministers and preachers. Thanks.
LikeLike
I am an ordinary Methodist – lifelong. I haven’t read any of the learned ‘Tomes’ quoted in this piece. However, I have a question which might be relevant to the heart-searching happening around this issue.
In the early 1970s, when there were the discussions about whether it is Biblical (etc.) to ordain females as Methodist Ministers, were the challenges and divisions similar?
I know there are ‘people’ still unhappy with that change.
LikeLike
You identify two models for how scripture, doctrine and practice interact; the cultural-linguistic model of George Lindbeck and the canonical-linguistic model of Kevin Vanhoozer. You go on to suggest that we should strive to keep these two understandings in tension and, as you say, aim for unity in diversity. An aim I fully endorse.
The assumption in Vanhoover’s writing is that the constraint on all models of how scripture, doctrine and practice interact is that they must affirm the creeds. Somehow credal theology “supports“ the pastor. Here I must beg to differ. As I see it this is manifestly not true. There are Christians who do not affirm the creeds or need the support of the creeds: I am thinking here of the Society of Friends (Quakers), Unitarians, Bahai and other faiths, virtually every theologian since Tillich and many people I know, who manage quite well without creedal support. Your aim of unity in diversity should apply to them.
Personally I go with the view of Levinas and Caputo who find in alterity, our relationships with others, a universal ethical spirituality that is prior to scripture, doctrine and practice and formative of a non-creedal theology. So, for me it is not the case that God comes to mind through reflection and prayer about the creeds – and then I respond by loving my neighbour, but that in behaving ethically I find God?
Kevin J. Vanhoover: “The Cambridge Companion to Postmodern Theology”.
John D. Caputo: “The Weakness of God” and “Cross and Cosmos”
LikeLike
It struck me that unity-in-diversity, finding the essential unity between differing theologies, is evident in other contexts. Erich Przywara identifies a duality between those who have a rationalist systematic approach, seeking a universal theoretical domination of the knowable, and those who have an irrationalist, unsystematic
approach, surrendering, often with a sense of wonder, at the inexhaustible diversity of the empirical-knowable world. He goes on to present a theology that synthesises these ideas in that they reflect an analogy of being in which we hold in tension divine immanence and divine transcendence – a “unity-in-tension”.
I maintain that this process of identifying a duality and seeking that which is common to both is deconstruction (which as Derrida often stated is not destruction but a re-construction). Simon Critchely in “The Ethics of Deconstruction” identifies a “unity-in-tension” or “unity in diversity” between the doctrinal analytical approach of systematic theology and the phenomenological approach of Levinas and Derrida. This unity in tension and seeking a common ground of diverse views is resolved by recognising the primacy of ethics.
For me the non-creedal “mantas” that I live by are that God comes to mind in the context of our ethical concern for others, Jesus exhortation that we love our neighbour as we love ourselves and John Lennon’s statement that “All You Need is Love”.
LikeLike
Thank you, George. Like you I have struggled with the challenge of diversity in Christian doctrine and practice. While I admire Vanhoozer’s dramatic model, I think he struggles to tie this 8n with his variation on sola scriptura. On the other hand, Lindbeck’s cultural-linguistic model – in spite of its merits – tends to float free from direct reference to truth. I still believe that the historic creeds have a referential value, even if their language is not univocal. Two very different works might help. One is William Placher’s The Domestication of Transcendence, which charts the way modernity has lost touch with analogy in its language about God. The other is the concept of the four voices of theology, which has been promoted by Helen Cameron and picked up in a lot of practical theology. It links formal, authorised, espoused and operant theologies reflecting different aspects of Christian faith and practice.
LikeLike
Thank you George. The comments from others show the depth and complexity of the issue, but I will take away one concept for thought and pondering – pastors (including in this term ministers and preachers) being called to ‘direct’ and support several congregations with distinctively different interpretations of the same script, and which relate in different ways to their contexts? Although very challenging, does this offer the opportunity to enhance everyone’s understanding of the one script as well as the varied contexts in which it is interpreted.
LikeLike
Very interesting Nick! It raises questions: Is there one true script with varied interpretations that are all approximations to that truth? Are all interpretations equally valid and true? For me the idea of “unity-in-tension” or “unity-in-diversity” implies the latter: To maintain tension between different “truths” or the diversity of interpretations implies that all truths and interpretations are equally valid. However, is the script or the interpretation of the script used by the Ku Klux Klan equally valid? As I wrote above, unity in tension and seeking a common ground of diverse views is resolved by recognising the primacy of ethics, and this overrides suggestions that there is one true script expressed as dogmatic statements or creeds.
LikeLike
Luke 20:41-44
I could elaborate, but what’s the point?
LikeLike
Is the idea of seeking a common ground of diverse views through “unity-in-tension” or “unity-in-diversity” doomed from the start if those taking part wish to retain their distinctiveness or, to put it bluntly, to assume there is only one true theology and it is their’s?
LikeLike
Doesn’t ‘unity in diversity’ mean loving and respecting those whose views we can’t agree with or condone, Robert? Like the KKK, for instance? Or Tory voters? Or, to put it bluntly, anyone who is not ‘woke’?
LikeLike
The motivation is to love and respect all we meet, but in responding to sociopaths, criminals, abusers etc., we have to think of the victims. So, for me, a church or churches seeking “unity in diversity” would assume participants in the discussion loved and cared for all people, recognising the primacy of ethics. This would exclude the KKK. In this, I and other protestors, are following Jesus who was the most “woke” person that ever lived.
Questions – there are always questions!
Is the Council of Churches movement an example of “unity in diversity” actually working?
Would the Council of Churches include the KKK in their discussions?
LikeLike
Isn’t it strange how some people interpret ‘inclusion’ in a way that excludes those who they don’t like and can’t tolerate?
From your comments on this site, Robert, I have deduced that you do not believe in a Creator, or even in a Deity? (I’m sure you will correct me if I am wrong!) You seem to be saying that your ‘god’ only exists when human beings are treating each other kindly, but I would happily sit next to you in church or fellowship with you (as I have done in the past though you probably don’t remember.) I don’t need to know the theology or the politics of the person sitting next to me in church. Just the fact that we are both there, in the presence of our Lord, is enough. Jesus is all we need. Jesus is enough. Jesus is greater than all our differences, opinions, politics or preferences. All are equal in the eyes of a merciful God (even if they wear white robes or a blue rosette!)
LikeLike
Further thoughts:
We all promote the image of Jesus which affirms what we want him to be, so we have the meek and mild good shepherd Jesus, the table-turning SJW Jesus, the miracle-working healer Jesus, the non-judgemental, wonderful counsellor Jesus (he’s my favourite!) and many more, I’m sure. Personally, I would not put ‘All are welcome’ on the church door. I would put ‘This is a Christian Sanctuary. Jesus is Lord! Please leave your ego at the door.’
LikeLike
George. Many thanks for bringing this issue of consensus to our attention. It really got me thinking! I read somewhere an article by a Canadian delegate to the Lambeth Conference who says that discussion about same-sex marriages in the C of E has been stopped by right-wing fundamentalists who have proposed the statement that; “It is the mind of the Anglican Communion as a whole that same gender marriage is not permissible.” It seems delegates can vote on this issue, the options being either “Yes I agree” or “I do not agree, but will go along with the majority view”. In other words they are NOT allowed to disagree!
In the discussion about unity-in-diversity is the Methodist Church likely to go the same way! Unity only being allowed among groups that agree with the traditionalist view and some token representation from those who disagree, given that they promise to go along with the majority view!
Some form of consensus or unity-in-diversity is essential if we are to show God’s unconditional love for all humanity. I pray and hope that Methodism does not adopt exclusive, judgmental attitudes that, as I see it, are re crucifying Christ.
LikeLike
I’m not sure you quite understand the meaning of unity, Robert! Going along with the views of the majority sounds very fair to me. This is how democracy works, isn’t it? Personally, I have no objection to same sex marriages, but I would accept any decision based on the majority view of the church to which I choose to belong. We can’t all agree on everything; for the sake of unity, we must sometimes agree to disagree.
LikeLike
Yes! We should agree to disagree sometimes, but the point is that at the Lambeth Conference on this issue no-one was allowed to disagree. This, of course, is precisely what happened to Dietrich Bonhoeffer: He disagreed with the church endorsing the holocaust. This was not allowed, he was not to be allowed to disagree, and he paid for this with his life.
LikeLike
You said yourself that people were allowed to disagree, but had to accept the majority view. I really can’t see the problem with this. It is fair, it is democratic, and when the majority view is that same-sex marriages should be allowed, then things will change. All in good time. It’s not unity if you’re only happy when you get your own way!
LikeLike
Unity-in-diversity is still on my mind! The other day I read a message from Carol Bodin that astonished me. She attends/attended a UMC church, somewhere unspecified, that has been taken over by an organisation called Global Church.They claim to be a Christian organisation that puts forward evangelical fundamentalist preachers who claim to love God, but attack people who have LGBTQ concerns, homosexuals, divorcees, anyone who questions the “traditionalist” view they call the truth and women who preach or hold office in the church. Carol, who I take to be the Minister, has tried to maintain a sense of unity. You could find the full message on Facebook/Progressive Methodism or Facebook/Pesky Methodists.
So I have mentioned the issue of same-gender marriages, the KKK, the murder of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the exclusion of non-Methodist Christian groups and now Global Church where exclusiveness and judgmentalism are prioritised over the ethical concern we should have for each other. I am beginning to think that ethics is the core of all theology, and philosophy for that matter, and wonder what this implies for piety, personal salvation, presence and other individualistic concerns. I am also deeply concerned about the future of the Methodist Church if the matter of unity-in-diversity is not addressed.
LikeLike
Maybe if we were all less concerned about the survival of our own denominations, and more concerned about the flourishing of the Church globally, unity would be a whole lot easier to achieve?
LikeLike