Wagging the Dog v. Aligning with Scripture

For those of you who don’t know me yet, my name is Tera Ertz. I am an elder in the Virginia Conference of the Global Methodist Church. I have had the privilege of serving Epworth Methodist Church of Aylett as pastor for the last year. I have also served the Virginia Conference in multiple capacities over the last three years, currently on the Communications Team, the Gathering Team, the Prayer Team, and the Multiplication Team. And I do periodic training at Annual Conference and with the ILI materials.

I say all that to say this: the article below is a reflection of my thoughts and not an official position of the Virginia Conference or of Epworth. In the great tradition of Methodism, all are invited to express themselves, but only the General Conference speaks on behalf of Global Methodism as a whole. Though we are also blessed with amazing teaching bishops who share their wisdom on understanding the doctrine and discipline of our church. Please read and receive the following with that understanding, and if it offends your sensibilities, that offense rests with me, rather than the organizations the Lord has sent me to serve. 

The Arguments Against Petition 1011

As the author of Petition 1011, though most of the delegates are likely already in South Africa and not likely to be reading Facebook, or my humble blog, I do feel led to address the very well written article in Firebrand yesterday by Suzanne Nicholson, as well as some of the comments on Plain Spoken with Jeffery Rickman back at the beginning of August. The author of the other petition offered specifically to extend communion also responded gently yesterday on Facebook, if you’d like further clarification on his petition’s grounding.

The Actual Rationale: Aligning Practice with Scripture

First, I’d like to clear up a misconception that came up in both of these critiques of Petition 1011 that would extend sacramental authority in two ways: to deacons in all settings (not limited to their appointed church) and to trained and commissioned laity. Both Rickman and Nicholson address this petition from the context of it being a response to a practical need in a growing church. While it would certainly answer a practical need, that was not its purpose or rationale. The goal of this petition is to align the practice of the Global Methodist Church with the teaching and commands of Scripture. While both Rickman and Nicholson focus on the issue of communion, it is actually baptism that grounds this petition, and neither of them addresses this very real issue of church tradition conflicting with Christ’s commands.

As Methodists, we believe that there are two sacraments ordained by Christ in Scripture, so I have coupled both together in this petition, as the two sacraments are not separable in our understanding. Baptism is the act of God that initiates us into the family of believers, Communion is the ongoing act of God that binds us to one another through the His real presence as we follow Christ’s command to remember His great sacrifice. The sacraments are commanded of all disciples, not just in the context of what we would consider a “church” setting.

The Scripture Foundation

First let us look at the issue of baptism. As the petition rationale states, Matthew 28:19-20 is the foundation of the mission of the Global Methodist Church. It is what is taught to every person in the church, laity and clergy, and what we are expected to hold as our personal and corporate mission in the world as Christ’s disciples. We call upon everyone to uphold and participate in this mission as part of our vows of membership. And it is consistently taught in our denomination as the call of every disciple to “Go and make disciples.” As a matter of fact, Keith Boyette has frequently spoken in multiplication and discipleship training that he does not consider someone a disciple until they have made a disciple.

This is the core understanding of the mission of every Global Methodist member, and we teach it based upon this passage in Scripture. The actual text reads, “Therefore, go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Spirit, teaching them to observe everything that I have commanded you.” On the issue of baptism, Scripture clearly commands it as one of the two primary parts of making disciples. If we are to use this Scripture as the foundation for evangelistic disciple-making that claims it is every disciple’s job to make disciples, and to teach disciples through personal witness, mentoring, parenting – living holy lives – then it feels disingenuous to also make the claim that only ordained clergy should be allowed to baptize.

Where Scripture is Indirect

On the issue of Communion, the conflict with Christ’s command is slightly less clear in Scripture. Communion in Scripture is taken in groups, and the case can be made that very early on there were elders being appointed and structure developed around the serving of Communion. However, there is nothing explicit in Scripture that assigns the blessing and serving of the elements to ordained elders. Paul’s letters on the topic are written to the churches as a whole, not simply to Titus and Timothy. There is also nothing in Scripture that provides for limited, location-based authority, such as is present in our current handling of Deacons. There is a clear command to share Communion whenever the people of God break bread and take wine together.

For support of the expansion of this authority, I turn first to the historical perspective of Methodism with regard to things not explicitly forbidden or commanded in Scripture. We come from a tradition that holds that things not expressly forbidden and that do not violate biblical principles, are allowed, particularly as they will benefit the body. This covers things like liturgies, vestments, and other traditions in worship that are not commanded, but also not forbidden, that aid people in the worship of God. In theological terms it’s called the Normative Rule, and it was first championed by Martin Luther, but is shared by many Protestant believers. This approach to Scripture is reflected in our doctrinal statements in things like the articles on the sufficiency of Scripture.

Secondly, as noted above, baptism and Communion are joined as the two sacraments ordained by Christ in our understanding of Scripture. They are interconnected, and it is difficult to make a case that one individual should have the authority of the first, given and commanded by Christ in Matthew 28, but not have the authority for the other.

Methodist History Is Mixed

Lastly, I would like to address the primary argument that was made against this amendment by both of those who accorded the amendment the privilege of their thoughts and time. The argument from tradition and history. They both made the argument that historically, John Wesley, though he valued the sacraments highly, still forbid the non-ordained from administering the sacraments. This Anglican tradition was so strong in him that he sent Thomas Coke to ordain Francis Asbury – against tradition.

I would argue two points. The first is that we already depart from the restrictions of John Wesley in a tremendously significant way, with strong biblical foundations, but far less direct command from Scripture. If we look to the original Articles and Confession, we will find that in both cases, where the newly proposed articles mention men and women called by God, our current foundational documents mention only men. John Wesley, being an Anglican Priest, while he eventually allowed for women to preach when there was no arguing with the anointing of the Spirit on them, never condoned the ordination of women. Women in ordained leadership in the church was a much later – and more biblically sound – position in the Wesleyan traditions. There is precedent in our rich heritage for correcting our historical positions when they are in conflict with the witness of Scripture and the leading of the Spirit.

Scripture Is Not a Leg

And that would be the last point. In our previous denomination much emphasis was placed on Outler’s Wesleyan Quadrilateral. The elevation of tradition, reason, and experience to the level of the authority of Scripture was a primary avenue for the dilution and eventual destruction of doctrinal teaching and scriptural holiness. Wesley’s, and indeed the entire seed of the Protestant Reformation’s premise was that Scripture is the final authority for Christian life and teaching, sola Scriptura. They stood along with Peter saying, “We must obey God rather than men!”

Matthew 28 commands all the people of God to go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Christ commanded his followers to take the bread and wine in remembrance of His mighty acts. These are the sacraments we follow. As Rickman mentioned, it would certainly be good to clarify the significance of those sacraments. And as I wrote into this petition, it is necessary for those administering the sacraments to know what they mean, to appreciate the weight of them, and so we should teach and commission, as we do for many other roles in the church. But there is nothing in Scripture that demands multiple years of higher education to gain that knowledge. And there is much to hinder the mission the Lord has given the people called Methodist if we refuse to allow Him to equip and empower His people for the mission of making disciples.

One additional correction to Rev. Rickman’s commentary. This petition does not call for authority to be exercised under the supervision of the Bishops, only that the Bishops develop the process for teaching and commissioning those who would participate. The authority, as it currently is for deacons, would be exercised under the supervision of the Presiding Elders of the district in which they are accountable.