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

By Dr. Nicole L. Johnson

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.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Pickwick Publications
• Release date: Jun 1, 2009
• ISBN: 9781498274760

Dr. Nicole L. Johnson

Nicole L. Johnson is Assistant Professor of Religion at Mount Union College in Alliance, Ohio.

Book preview

Practicing Discipleship

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

Nicole L. Johnson

2008.Pickwick_logo.jpg

PRACTICING DISCIPLESHIP

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

Copyright © 2009 Nicole L. Johnson. Except for brief quotations in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3, Eugene, OR 97401.

Pickwick Publications

A Division of Wipf and Stock Publishers

199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3

Eugene, OR 97401

www.wipfandstock.com

isbn 13: 978-1-60608-009-2

eisbn 13: 978-1-4982-7476-0

Cataloging-in-Publication data:

Johnson, Nicole L.

Practicing discipleship : lived theologies of nonviolence in conversation with the doctrine of the United Methodist Church / Nicole L. Johnson.

viii + 152 p. ; 23 cm. —Includes bibliographical references.

isbn 13: 978-1-60608-009-2

1. Peace—Religious aspects—Methodist Church. 2. Methodist Church—Doctrines. I. Title.

bx8349.p43 j63 2009

Manufactured in the U.S.A.

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

Acknowledgments

This project owes its existence to so many people who have, either directly or indirectly, been a part of this work. At Boston University School of Theology, Claire E. Wolfteich and Dale P. Andrews served as first and second readers, respectively, on the dissertation. Their critiques, suggestions, and cheerleading were indispensable in developing and completing this project. Nancy T. Ammerman, Bruce Fraser, John Hart, Zina Jacque, Glen A. Messer, Rodney Petersen, Tom Porter, Bryan P. Stone, and Karen Westerfield Tucker provided insight and encouragement at different stages of this project; in addition, conversations with fellow Th.D. students, particularly Carolynne Brown, Julian Gotobed, and Pat McLeod, offered not only wisdom but also collegiality during the long and lonely months of research and writing. Of course, I would never even have gone on to doctoral studies if it weren’t for the virtual insistence of my dear friend, mentor, and teacher, John L. McLaughlin, formerly of Wheeling Jesuit University and now of the University of St. Michael’s College in Toronto. Most recently, I am indebted to Charlie Collier at Wipf & Stock Publishers for his support of this project.

My sister Julie once used the metaphor of tools in a toolbox to describe the set of skills, gifts, and aptitudes a person receives in her or his life for use in overcoming obstacles and pursuing one’s goals. I am blessed with a family (of the immediate, extended, and in-law persuasions) that has provided me with such tools as support, varied and sundry models of faithfulness, a strong work ethic, hilarity and humor, cheerleading, shoulders to cry on, constructive criticism, and unfathomable love throughout my life. One might think that the sheer number and variety of these tools might make for a cumbersome load to lug around from year to year, but in fact these things only make my journey all the lighter and more enjoyable. Words can never express just how grateful I am for my diverse and wonderful family.

Perhaps most of all, this study owes its existence to my husband Glenn, who provided daily doses of laughter (read: sanity), kept up faith in me even when I was drowning in self-doubt, and bore the brunt of my grumpy days which occurred regularly with the approach of various deadlines. Glenn has never questioned my academic or career pursuits and has supported me in countless ways. I am so grateful to God for the gift that Glenn is in my life and for this ever-eye-opening journey called marriage. May the love that we share never cease to surprise and delight.

Finally, without the witness and work of the twelve Methodist individuals who participated in this study, the project simply could not have happened. While I cannot name these twelve friends at this time due to the study’s boundaries of confidentiality, what I can reveal is that this dynamic dozen—which includes lay and clergy, male and female, twenty-somethings and long-time AARP members, New Englanders, southerners, and the in-between-ers, and a lovely bouquet of colorful faces—serve a diversity of congregations and communities and are seeking, in their own corners of the world, to make their lives look a little less violent and a little more like Jesus Christ. This book is dedicated to these twelve people. May their witness bring the church to ever-greater faithfulness to God.

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 grace⁵ 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 potential to revitalize the church and provide much-needed direction for ecclesial life, especially as this life is expressed in the church’s doctrine, ethics, and efforts toward faith-formation of its members. The method of practical-theological reflection utilized in this study does not necessarily give primacy to the lived theology over and against the doctrinal tradition, but draws both into a constructive dialogue in pursuit of what it might mean for the church to practice and exhibit a greater faithfulness.

By taking this lived-theology approach, the project contributes to current academic research trends in lived theology and its related variations such as lived religion, everyday theologies, and lay theology.¹⁰ In doing so, the project raises fundamental questions about how theological reflection is carried out by challenging the assumption that one can know what a person believes based solely on his or her church’s doctrine and teachings. Members of churches do not always adopt the teachings of their traditions as absolute truth; rather, they reason theologically based on their own interpretations of authoritative theological sources and also on their own experience and reason. A lived theology approach recognizes the wisdom and value to be discovered within the lives of everyday Christian people.

Also with regard to the field of Practical Theology, the study models one way of navigating the relationship between social science research methods—namely, a phenomenologically-oriented qualitative methodology—and practical-theological discovery; in this case, the study positions social science research methods in service to the larger practical-theological (and Christian) enterprise, viewing such methods as important tools particularly for the purpose of elucidating and describing the views of nonviolent United Methodist Christians. As Swinton and Mowat argue, "Practical Theology is theological reflection and therefore theology is (or at least should be) the primary source of knowledge which guides and provides the hermeneutical framework within which Practical Theology carries out its task."¹¹ While this position does not preclude the importance of critical reflection and challenge to theology, it assumes that While there remains much scope for critical dialogue and mutual reflection, the conversation is always inherently asymmetrical with theology having necessary logical priority.¹² Given the researcher’s understanding of the task of Practical Theology to ‘remind’ the Church of the subtle ways in which it differs from the world and to ensure that its practices remain faithful to the script of the gospel,¹³ for the purposes and direction of the current study, at least, the researcher agrees with Swinton and Mowat that Practical Theology can utilize qualitative research methods to aid in this process of ensuring that Christian practice is in correspondence to the event of God’s self-communication.¹⁴

The second audience is the United Methodist Church and the different levels that constitute it. At the denominational level, the General Board of Church and Society is charged with the responsibility to seek the implementation of the Social Principles and to conduct a program of research, education, and action on the wide range of issues that confront the Church.¹⁵ The General Board of Discipleship works to provide resources that support growth in Christian discipleship.¹⁶ This study seeks an audience with both of these General