[Reflections on The Discipline] Special Directions
In light of the upcoming Fifteenth General Conference of The Wesleyan Church, I have begun a review of The Discipline of The Wesleyan Church 2022, which serves as the seminal definition of Wesleyan belief and polity. My objective in this is to remind myself of the timeless things which have driven our denomination since its inception and to consider how to best pursue them in the next fifty years. Moreover, I intend to document this journey by sharing thoughts, experiences, and dreams along the way, and in so doing, I hope to encourage and even inspire those who will be elected in 2025 to be present at General Conference in 2026 to imagine what could and should be.
Chapter 5 of The Discipline is entitled “Special Directions” and includes directives on a variety of matters that are important but do not rise to the level of dogma. On these matters, The Wesleyan Church recognizes that individuals may hold a range of ideas and opinions and still remain under the umbrella of the denomination. Examples include equal rights, conscientious objectors, Sabbath observance, and more.
Before I begin, it is important to recognize the impressive work which has been done to draft and deliver this chapter. Of all the chapters in The Discipline, this one has the greatest potential to cause conflict because there is such a broad spectrum of belief on these matters. Take, for instance, the position on conscientious objection (par. 410:3). There are many Wesleyans who serve proudly in the armed forces and would willingly take up arms to defend their nation, and we support them in doing so. At the same time, there are Wesleyans who believe that killing is wrong and therefore choose to remain conscientious objectors, and we support them as well. Writing a policy to support both of these extremes, without alienating anyone in the process, is a significant accomplishment. That said, as I peruse these special directions, I would offer three primary observations.
Make them mean something.
The first of these is probably the toughest to address, but for a variety of reasons, some of these directives are essentially meaningless today. A great example is found in Par. 410:5, where we are told that “The Wesleyan Church maintains a biblical view of human sexuality.” In decades past, “biblical view of human sexuality” was understood universally to mean that sex should happen only between a husband and a wife, but in more recent times, numerous people have endeavored to provide biblical rationalizations for a variety of other situations. We have responded to some of these by publishing position papers, including “The Wesleyan Church and Homosexuality,” “A Wesleyan View of Gender Identity and Expression,” and “A Wesleyan View of Domestic Violence,” all of which are fantastic. Yet, we have not elevated these position papers to the level of The Discipline, even by way of a reference within the text.
Another great example of a directive that is essentially meaningless is in Par. 410:13, where Wesleyans are exhorted to “provide clear testimony to Christian purity and modesty by properly clothing the body and by dressing with Christian simplicity.” Again, in decades past, phrases such as “properly clothing the body” and “Christian simplicity” were consistently understood within the culture. However, even a brief stroll through the nearest shopping mall or Walmart, or a trip to the local swimming pool will reveal that this universal understanding is long gone. Further, I would submit that most people who read this paragraph will assume it applies primarily – perhaps even exclusively – to women. Women and girls are expected to wear proper clothing and dress with Christian simplicity while men and boys are allowed a great deal more latitude in their attire. Case in point, we ask girls to cover themselves at swimming pools, but we have no qualms allowing boys to prance about half naked. On the other hand, do we bat an eye when a man or woman shows up with gold necklaces, rings, and more?
Our shifting culture has negated some of the assumptions which we made about the language, thereby emptying some of these directives of their meaning. We must, therefore, revisit these directives, determine what we are trying tell people, and then discern (a) if the paragraph is even necessary or (b) how it may be updated to ensure we send the clearest possible message to the next generation of Wesleyans and the world.
Our stance on abortion is too narrow.
Paragraph 410:11 includes a general exhortation “to recognize and preserve the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death.” It then calls on “members to become informed abut the abortion issue and to become actively involved locally and nationally in the preparation and passage of appropriate legislation.” To ce certain, this is a clarion call to oppose abortion. However, I would observe that being anti-abortion is only a small part of being comprehensively pro-life.
To be fair, The Wesleyan Church has realized this to an extent and offered an expanded position paper entitled “Sanctity of Life” to help fill the gaps. However, even this position paper – published in 2015 – is limited in its scope. For instance, it condemns abortion and outlines ways that Wesleyans should resist abortion, but it does not suggest any means by which Wesleyans should support women who choose to give birth to their unplanned or unwanted children. It does not encourage Wesleyan churches to partner with crisis pregnancy centers, to provide financial assistance so mothers can afford formula and diapers, or to offer daycare so mothers can work to pay the bills.
So also, neither The Discipline nor the position paper address additional moral issues surrounding life. For instance, what should happen with the extra eggs fertilized during in vitro fertilization? Should Wesleyans utilize medicines or other products that were tested on tissue derived from aborted fetuses? Given that the most popular contraceptives are designed to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall rather than actual fertilization/conception, are there limitations to the types of birth control Wesleyans should use?
Perhaps the most troubling oversight of the Wesleyan position on abortion, however, is the lack of any discussion of rape or incest. In recent years, many politicians have run on a pro-life platform by announcing that they oppose abortion except in the case of rape or incest, and they may have a point. For a long time, rape and incest were dismissed as non-issues because the rate of occurrence was so small, but the fact that one in six women will be the victim of sexual violence in their lifetime demands that we grapple with this question.
Moreover, we have not addressed other matters surrounding life and death. For example, we say we are against euthanasia, but what about its more palattable sister, assisted suicide. Why should we not end the suffering of a person who is permanently handicapped or in a persistently vegetative state, or allow someone with a terminal diagnosis to die with dignity? And what of those who cannot afford medications and food at the same time, who lost their jobs and now have no place to live? In 2021, a homeless person was found frozen to death mere feet from the library in our community. Are these not matters concerning the sanctity of life and death?
Sometimes, we shoot our own foot.
Finally, there are at least a couple of places in this chapter where we shoot ourselves in the foot. The primary example of this is in Par. 440, which provides a brief treatment of our responsibilities concerning Christian liberty. This is an important paragraph, and much of it comes directly out of Scripture. It is undeniably sound teaching. However, in the interest of conciseness, I fear we have opened ourselves to trouble.
Indeed, I believe two characteristics of the current cultural climate make this paragraph particularly problematic. First, the dramatic decline of biblical literacy over the last half century makes it challenging for parishioners and many pastors alike to discern between biblical and convictional matters. Worse, many pastors and parishioners are complacent in their biblical illiteracy, meaning that they are not actively working to learn the things they do not yet know.
Second, and even more problematic, is the tendency of almost every believer to assume that they are the stronger brother or sister. This assumption, of course, is rarely overt. Rather, it often begins as a legitimate calling to teach others but then, somewhere along the line, morphs into the belief that everyone should learn from me. Soon, we are yelling at everyone else to shut up and listen to what we have to say. We do not entertain anyone or anything that criticizes or even questions our interpretation of things, and we shift from being careful not to place a stumbling block before our brother or sister to insisting on our rights and liberties as Christians and lambasting them for their stupidity.
Given that this paragraph is already a compilation of several Bible verses about Christian liberty, the best solution to this problem may be to include other references that call us to continue in our study of the Word of God, help us discern the difference between biblical and convictional matters (e.g., 1 John 4:1), and outline some basic principles for conflict management (i.e., how do Christians process disagreement and debate?).
In the end, I would assert that chapter five is, in some ways, too long while, in others, it is not nearly long enough. However, if we are going to elevate these matters of personal conviction to the level of The Discipline, I would assert that we should give them a much more adequate treatment than we have given them thus far.