|
|
Unpublished, December 2005
THE PERIODICAL UNITED METHODISM NEEDS
by Rev. Paul T. Stallsworth
The United Methodist Church needs
another periodical.
Many informed United Methodists
might reply to this claim: “What? Why? Right now United Methodists
have more periodicals than we can possibly read.”
At first glance, this reply makes
some sense. Consider the present assortment of United Methodist
periodicals. First of all, there are the congregational and district
newsletters. Add the conference newspapers and magazines,
jurisdictional publications, and denominational periodicals (e.g.,
Circuit Rider, Interpreter, Quarterly Review, and
Response). The United Methodist Reporter -- from Dallas, TX
-- is a denomination-wide weekly. In addition, the renewal groups of
various theological persuasions offer their own publications: e.g., The
Confessing Movement within The United Methodist Church, Good News, the
Institute on Religion and Democracy/UMAction, Lifewatch, and the
Methodist Federation for Social Action have their own, in-house
publications. Also, The Christian Century, which features a
wonderful array of theologically diverse articles, and Zion’s Herald
publish many articles of special interest to United Methodists.
Furthermore, there are the Web sites maintained by many of the
aforementioned, and United Methodist blogs are increasing in number. As
is obvious, engaged, alert United Methodist clergy and laity could
easily spend forty hours a week reading through church-related
periodicals and Web sites.
Even so, there is one periodical
that is needed but is not yet being published. That is a periodical
that would carry serious, thoughtful theological argument on church
teaching (doctrinal and moral).
Again comes an objection from
many United Methodists: “But The United Methodist Church is currently
suffering from too much theological argument. Theological argument is
all over the church, all the time. We United Methodists do not need any
more of it.”
While apparently true, this
objection does not hold water for three reasons. First, there is a move
afoot in United Methodism to limit theological argument. For example,
under new editorial leadership, The United Methodist Reporter,
which used to be an excellent and fair forum for airing theological
disagreements, has shifted its attention away from controversial
theological matters. Without the Reporter hosting denominational
arguments, there is no other church-wide periodical that accomplishes
this necessary task.
Second, the theological arguments
that are taking place most often involve one party in the church making
charges against another party in the church. Fragments of these
arguments often appear in conference newspapers/ magazines, in
denominational publications, and in renewal-group literature.
Unfortunately, these engagements are not as thoughtful as they should
be. Nor are they sustained and allowed to develop in a way that
instructs.
Third, it appears that no church
periodical, and no one within the church, is consistently making the
case for the church’s teaching. Again, The United Methodist Church’s
teaching is not being taught, in a way that constructively engages those
who disagree, by leaders within the church. Such fruitful, theological
teaching is simply not happening.
So, the claim remains: The United
Methodist Church needs another periodical.
The needed periodical might be
named Doctrine and Dissent (or Doctrine, Dissent, and Defense).
It would be published quarterly. Its prose would be theological without
being academic and ponderous. It would be written for the church -- not
for the college, the university, or the divinity school.
Each issue of Doctrine and
Dissent would consist of three essays published as a brief booklet.
The first essay would present the established teaching of The United
Methodist Church on a doctrinal or moral subject. More than simply
quoting The Book of Discipline, the initial essay would assert
the church’s teaching and the reasons for that teaching. The second
essay would offer reasoned dissent. Objections to the church teaching
of the first essay, and reasons for those objections, would be laid out
in essay number two. And the third essay would be an exercise in the
defense of the church’s doctrine: it would have the writer of the first
essay meet the objections of the writer in dissent. Again, the format
of each issue would be: doctrine, dissent, and defense.
The essays of this periodical
would be written by the theologically best and brightest, not the
loudest and most shrill, in The United Methodist Church. Bishops,
divinity-school professors, and pastors would be the main contributors
to the periodical.
For example, assume that
significant challenges against United Methodist doctrine on the Trinity
arises, as happened when Bishop Sprague was in the news a couple of
years ago. As soon as possible, Doctrine and Dissent would
feature an issue on the Trinity. United Methodism’s teaching would be
presented (probably by a bishop), a dissenting case would feature the
dissenting challenges of the day, and the church’s teaching would then
be defended by the original essayist. This particular issue of
Doctrine and Dissent would certainly not end the dispute regarding
the Trinity, but it would put it into perspective; and there would be no
question about where The United Methodist Church, as Church, stands on
the matter.
In a denomination that has
seemingly intractable theological disagreements and that has fragments
of theological arguments running throughout its periodicals, Doctrine
and Dissent would help to centralize and represent, organize and
guide, the theological arguments of the day. By allowing the church’s
best teachers to step forward, this proposed periodical would help The
United Methodist Church, as Church, to teach more often and more
truthfully.
The United Methodist Church needs
another periodical. Name it Doctrine and Dissent.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Rev. Stallsworth is
the pastor of St. Peter’s United Methodist Church in Morehead City, NC,
and the editor of the quarterly newsletter Lifewatch.
|