Practicing Discipleship

Lived Theologies of Nonviolence in Conversation with the Doctrine of the United Methodist Church

Johnson

• Publisher: Pickwick Publications
• Year: 2009
• eBook ISBN: 9781498274760
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religion

Despite a plurality of doctrinal statements on war, peace, and nonviolence, some United Methodists sustain a commitment to nonviolence. Through qualitative research, Practicing Discipleship draws out lived theologies of nonviolence in order to understand how nonviolent United Methodists define, ground, and practice nonviolence, and to give that voice opportunity to challenge church doctrine and thereby the wider church. An analysis of statements from the Book of Disciplines and the Book of Resolutions reveals the plurality of Methodist teachings on moral issues related to war and peace. While such plurality is indicative of the inclusive tradition of United Methodism, Johnson shows that it also causes confusion, thus hindering the vitality and authority of the church's witness. This study's qualitative analysis of in-depth interviews with twelve nonviolent United Methodists reveals a lived theology rooted in Scripture and theological reflection: it points particularly to a christocentrism that posits nonviolence as central to Christ's teachings and example. While study participants affirm the tradition of openness in the United Methodist Church, they also call for more tangible and extensive support for and education about nonviolence as a faithful option for Christians. Through amicable and constructive practical-theological dialogue, doctrinal plurality, and ecclesial openness are affirmed as appropriate and possible only within the context of the church's profound commitment to serious discipleship, which includes transformation toward nonviolence. Implications of this interaction include developing and adopting a more truthful conception of a nonviolent ethics, moving toward broadly conceived Christian formation in nonviolence, and fostering ongoing ecclesial dialogue about difficult moral issues of war, peace, and nonviolence.

1

Introduction

Statement of the Problem

In March 2003, the United States initiated military action in Iraq. That same month, the United Methodist News Service disseminated an article entitled “Social Principles spell out church’s stand on war.”1 Beginning with the observation that “many United Methodists are wondering where their denomination stands on the issue of war,” the article admits that although the Social Principles of the United Methodist Church describe war as “incompatible with the teachings of Christ,” the denomination “acknowledges that when peaceful alternatives have failed, armed force may be necessary.”

Exploration into the United Methodist Book of Discipline demonstrates that when it comes to questions about war, peace, and nonviolence, the church is less clear than the title of the News Service article implies and in fact maintains a plurality of views on the topic. Some statements appear within the Discipline that seem to posit the United Methodist Church as a pacifist church, while other statements seem to outline a more just war approach. A person attempting to discern how she should respond to the moral dilemma of war and violence would find conflicting teachings, depending on the part of the doctrine to which she looked.

While parts of the Discipline do seem to promote nonviolence, relative to statements that more clearly espouse just war teachings, nonviolence is certainly a minority view.2 In addition, there can be little argument that a vast majority of Methodists in the United States would not identify themselves as pacifist or nonviolent.3 Despite this fact and despite the general lack of clarity within United Methodist doctrine around issues of war and peace, some United Methodist persons take a particular stand on the moral issue of war by developing and sustaining a commitment to nonviolence that they understand as central to Christian faith.

How and why do some United Methodists come to this commitment in a denomination that doctrinally and practically is not considered to be a pacifist church? For those who see nonviolence as central to Christian faith, what are the theological beliefs and practices that underwrite that commitment, and how might this minority voice shape one’s thinking about United Methodist doctrine and teachings about war and nonviolence? In an effort to draw out this minority voice within the United Methodist Church, and in the hope of contributing to current conversations about war and nonviolence in the denomination and beyond it, this study seeks to answer the following questions: What is the lived theology of United Methodist Christians who are committed to nonviolence, and what sustains that commitment? How might a lived theology of nonviolence speak to a denomination that maintains a plurality of teachings within its doctrinal tradition?

Significance of the Study

How one should interpret doctrinal plurality on a given moral issue—in this case, the issue of war and violence—is a significant question for this study. On one hand, such plurality may yield confusion and incoherence within the denomination. That confusion exists in the church on this issue is evident in the diversity of views contained in United Methodist News articles distributed prior to the start of the war in Iraq.4 On the other hand, such pluralism may be appropriate to Methodism, which is in part characterized by a sense of inclusion and openness to the leading of the Spirit within a diverse community of faith. As the Book of Discipline states, Methodists live and worship together “in a covenant of grace”5 wherein “Devising formal definitions of doctrine has been less pressing . . . than summoning people to faith and nurturing them in the knowledge and love of God.”6 However, after pointing to the long legacy of Methodist social concern and to “the connection between doctrine and ethics,” the Discipline also confirms that conflicting teachings on ethical issues are problematic because “a church lacking the courage to act decisively on personal and social issues loses its claim to moral authority.”7

In seeking to answer the central research question regarding the lived theology of nonviolence and how that commitment is sustained, it is critical to understand what accounts for the beliefs and practices of contemporary United Methodists around questions of war and nonviolence. This project attends to one part of this issue by exploring the lived theology of those United Methodists who have arrived at a commitment to nonviolence. This particular approach to thinking about nonviolence in the United Methodist Church will build upon but move beyond the work of theologians who want to call the church to a pacifist stance based primarily on the pacifist-oriented statements in United Methodist doctrine. While an effort to highlight these doctrinal statements is an important contribution to the conversation, existing scholarship has yet to explore the lived theology of those who strive to sustain a commitment to nonviolence in the United Methodist Church. By highlighting the voices of contemporary United Methodist Christians who make an explicit and intentional commitment to nonviolence, this study contributes to wider conversations in the church as it grapples with issues of war and nonviolence. This grappling has been noted above and is further demonstrated by the changes since 1972 to the United Methodist Social Principles which address war, military service, and pacifism. As textual analysis will show, continual changes to the statements on “Military Service” and “War and Peace” suggest that the problem of how the church should respond to questions of war and peace is far from settled. It is hoped that the lives and work of those who are both United Methodist and committed to nonviolence would provide wisdom which might speak to the denomination as it seeks to be faithful to its calling as a church which follows Christ.

This project’s emphasis on lived theology points to the interrelatedness of belief and practice in the lives of those who maintain a commitment to nonviolence. The project explores the theological sources and beliefs that undergird such a commitment. Upon what, if any, authoritative Christian sources (such as Scripture, theology, church history, and historical theology)8 does the nonviolent community rely? What other theories and ideas do people view as foundational to their commitments to nonviolence? At the same time, the project explores the specific practices of nonviolence within the particularities of the lives of contemporary United Methodist Christians. What are the practices in which those who understand themselves to be nonviolent engage? How do Christians who hold to an ethic of nonviolence define and understand those practices? What are the practices that sustain the practitioner in his or her efforts? And how do beliefs and practices of nonviolence come together to shape the nonviolent commitment and way of life? As Craig Dykstra has argued, it is in the engagement of practices that we are moved to greater commitment: “People come to faith and grow in the life of faith in the context of these practices as they themselves, participating in them actively, actually do what these practices involve.”9

The project also looks closely at the relationship between doctrinal teachings and the beliefs and practices of those who do not exactly agree with those teachings. How people name and negotiate their disagreements with integrity while remaining very active in and connected to the United Methodist Church is a particularly important aspect of the study. How do those in the minority on a given issue—in this case, those who commit to a nonviolent ethic—find support in the church and even grow in their commitments despite the fact that those commitments are not part of the mainstream thinking, doctrinally or practically, of the church?

Finally, this study has strong potential to offer to the church creative suggestions for how it might be more faithful to its nature and mission as a body that follows the “Prince of Peace.” Is the lived theology of nonviolence, as it is understood and practiced by nonviolent United Methodists, convincing and persuasive to other United Methodists as a valid and viable moral option for a Christian person to choose? If so, how might that lived theology of nonviolence challenge a denomination that seems uncertain in its teaching around war, violence, and nonviolence? It is assumed in this study that there is something to be learned on the part of the larger denomination from those who maintain a commitment to Christian nonviolence. The author hopes that in giving a hearing to those for whom nonviolence is a key expression of Christian faith, the United Methodist Church would gain insight into how the church might respond most faithfully to the pressing moral issues of war and violence.

Intended Audience

Three different audiences exist for this study: the academy, the United Methodist Church, and the wider Christian church. The project contributes to the field of Practical Theology by posing a method of theological research and reflection that takes very seriously the beliefs and practices of people who are attempting to live out their understandings of Christian faith in concrete and meaningful ways. In so doing, the project proposes that attention to what “real people” actually think and do has the pote...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Acknowledgments
• Chapter 1: Introduction
• Chapter 2: Research Methodology
• Chapter 3: Literature Review
• Chapter 4: A Pacifist Church or a Just War Church?
• Chapter 5: Qualitative Analysis: Findings and Report
• Chapter 6: Practical-Theological Dialogue
• Afterword
• Appendix A: Informed Consent Form
• Appendix B: Interview Aid
• Appendix C: Interview Grid
• Bibliography