Time has lapsed since I began the series on Recovering Doctrinal Integrity through the Thirty-Nine Articles, and a summary of the premise is in order. When something is lost you begin to look for it in the last place you saw it. The last place Methodists saw a clear and complete statement of our Articles of Religion was in the Thirty-Nine Articles, not the abridged twenty-five we currently hold.
When John Wesley produced the Sunday Service of the Methodists in North America, he was not producing a new doctrinal work, nor was he publishing a revised Book of Common Prayer. He produced an abridged version of the Book of Common Prayer just as he had published abridgements of many other works. In an abridgement, pertinent information is left out to make the work more affordable and more accessible for more people.
It was a sloppy abridgement. He did not intend for Methodists in North America to omit Scripture readings on two Sundays a year. Wesley did not intend that we use two different versions of the Lord’s Prayer. Others meddled with the text prior to publication requiring Wesley to print several errata pages and ship them to the United States for binding. That resulted in two versions of the Sunday Service in circulation at the same time. Each of them had numerous errors.
The Sunday Service is an abridged Book of Common Prayer produced as a temporary resource for a new church in an historically unprecedented situation. Somebody was supposed to finish it. Nobody ever did.
While the Articles of Religion were abridged in the Sunday Service for North America, the original Articles remained the standard for Methodists outside the United States for well into the next century. For a couple of generations, the abridgement had little impact in the United States because, even though they were omitted from the text, Methodists still advocated and defended the principles and used them to guide their practice.
The delegates to the historic Christmas Conference were understandably enthusiastic about being part of a new work and excited about getting on with the mission of spreading Scriptural holiness throughout the land. So much so that they apparently expended little effort in the less exciting work of examining their foundational documents. The oversight had little effect on the first two generations. However, by the third generation the idea arose that an omission meant rejection, rejection is equivalent to denial, and denial means the principle must be refuted. There is an unobstructed road from the omission of the Nicene Creed to modern day bishops who refute the Nicene Creed. There is a clear path from the omission of Article XV to the open refutation by modern Methodist clergy of the sinless nature of Christ. As the Global Methodist Church prepares for its convening conference the delegates also will be understandably enthusiastic about being part of a new work and excited about getting on with the mission of spreading Scriptural holiness throughout the land. For the sake of future generations let us attend to the less exciting work of examining our foundational documents.
This series looks at our doctrinal standards starting with the original Thirty-Nine Articles. We ask along the way, what need s to be retained, what needs to be omitted, and what new Articles, if any, need to be added.
In preparation for a convening conference, people more capable than I am are working on Doctrinal Standards as well as Rites and Ceremonies of the Global Methodist Church. It would be good if they would share their insights in more public forum so that the discussion can be of a higher quality than what I can provide.
TAKEAWAYS
This is advocacy writing. I have an agenda, which is to say I have a point or points I want to advance. If an essay does not have an agenda, then that would mean the essay is pointless. Here are the key points that I hope the reader will be open to from this study.
- Articles 21, 23, 35, and 36 are properly omitted from the Articles of Religion as they are better addressed through instruments of polity.
- Article 22 should be completely re-written to clearly express its intent.
- A new Article is justified following Article 32 (Of the Marriage of Ministers) which affirms the ordination of women.
- All remaining Articles should be restored with their original language allowing for editorial changes for clarity (e.g., substituting ministers for priests; persons or people for men when that is the clear intent)
Nature and Ministry of the Church
Articles 19 -36 (reduced to articles 13-22 in the abridged version) present us with God’s desire for the visible Church. Laid before us are the identity of the Church, her authority, principles of communal life, and her responsibility for the mysteries with which she is entrusted.
Though I have argued passionately for the use of the Thirty-Nine Articles as a guide for recovering doctrinal integrity, Articles 21, 23, 35, and 36 concern matters that are best addressed through instruments of polity, not Articles of Religion. Indeed, successive generations within the Methodist and Anglican communities have found it necessary to omit them, amend them, or accommodate them with special treatment. They are not universally applicable. They may vary according to time and place. I will not reproduce those Articles here. They may be easily retrieved from a variety of sources.
Five Articles in this section (15, 24, 28, 30, 32) are received in substantially original form and are without current without controversy. They are listed in the their numerical sequence without commentary.
THE ARTICLES
Numbering indicates the place in the original Thirty-Nine
Italics indicate words that are present in the original but omitted in the abridged texts.
XIX. Of the Church. Article 13 Abridged Version
>The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.<
As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.
- The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men…
The Church (kuriakon) is a congregation (ekklesia). As kuriakon the church “belongs to the Lord.” The description applies to the people and the place. The Lord’s people gather in the Lord’s house on the Lord’s Day to receive the Lord’s Supper. As ekklesia the Lord’s people have been assembled into a new community. This is a new nation among the peoples of the earth. The Church is a people who are not known by their geographical boundaries or common ethnicity. The only common blood we share is the blood of Christ. Every Lord’s Day theses resident aliens and ambassadors of the kingdom seek out an embassy. They gather to fellowship with their countrymen, sing the songs of their homeland, and listen for a word from their king.
In the custom of 16th Century England, the term “faithful men” refers to males, females, adults, and children. At this point in our communal life we can substitute a word that communicates the same idea but is more agreeable to modern sensitivities. However, if we are concerned about what is meant by the term “men” then we ought to be more concerned about what is meant by the term “faithful.” The Lord’s people constitute a new community whose unwavering trust and undivided loyalty belong to God.
- …in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance…
The two provisions constitute one condition. Both must be present. Christ entrusted to the Church both the evangelion and the mysterion: The word and the sacrament. The Church is both evangelical and sacramental. This provision is a corrective for those numerous iterations of Methodism where it has degenerated into an either/or condition. One might say, “I am evangelical; therefore, I am Methodist.” Another person might say, “I am devoted to the sacraments; therefore, I am Methodist.” This is not either/or. If we are move into a revitalized Methodism, then many of us will need to open our minds and hearts to the half of being church that we have neglected.
- As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred…
This sentence is omitted from our present Article but ought to be returned. It is not a condemnation of all churches but our own. It is a reminder that throughout history the Church has fallen into error. This provision of the Article is meant to correct the false teaching of infallibility. While the doctrine of papal infallibility did not become official until centuries after this Article was written, there was already a rising movement in both the East and West promoting the idea of infallibility. It serves us well to remember that we can fall into error and that error need not render us no longer the Church. (We will revisit this in discussing Articles 20 and 26 which are also omitted the our abridged version.)
God will not leave us in error. The principle is that the Church is fallible, but she is indefectible. One of the duties of the overseers of a connectional church is to guard against error. One of the roles of the councils of a connectional church is to correct the error when it is detected. The means by which we examine our practice and correct our error are best established in our instruments of polity, not the Articles of Religion. The Article alerts us that our polity needs to contain such provision.
XX. Of the Authority of the Church. Omitted from the Abridged Version
>The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree anything against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce anything to be believed for necessity of Salvation.<
The omission of this Article is a big deal. We will see how big it is when we get to Article 34 of this section and again in the next essay when we are in the section From Church to the World. It accomplishes four things. First, the responsibility and authority to establish Rites and Ceremonies and to settle controversies of faith has been given by God to the Church. This is a “No Trespassing” sign writ large to outside elements who would impose their several agendas upon the Church. Second, the ministers of the Church serve as ones under authority and are answerable to the councils and overseers of the Church. Third, it is the responsibility of the councils of the Church to establish the content of her Rites, Ceremonies, and Doctrines to facilitate the communication of the Gospel and to provide allowances and limitations for experimentation, so her ministers do not lead a church adrift into a sea of errors through misguided good intentions, ignorance, neglect, or mere forgetfulness. Fourth, in the conducting their authority, the councils of the Church may not elevate one place of Scripture over another to nullify the word of God or to require anything to believed as necessary for salvation which is not proven in Holy Scripture.
I do not know of any clergy who would accept the states authority to determine who is eligible for baptism or which funerals they may conduct. Yet, every day clergy refuse to offer the rite of marriage rite except to those couples licensed by the state. Similarly, some churches argue that if a couple meets the requirements of the state for marriage, then the church must honor the state’s determination. The days have long past since the Western Church and the state had a common interest in marriage and could defer to one another while maintaining their integrity. In a myriad of less notorious ways the Church is faced with demands from secular institutions to alter or abolish her Rites, Ceremonies, and Doctrine to accommodate a heathen people. Article 20 establishes a boundary beyond which they may not pass.
If the Church has authority in such matters, then she exercises it first within her own body. Ministers of God through the Church are the first ones to practice submission to the authority of the Church. This is difficult in the best of times because we are by human nature rebellious children of The Fall. We live among a libertine, lustful, and licentious people who celebrate the autonomous self. It is made more difficult if ministers have been subjected to unjust and ungodly people sitting in the seats of authority in the Church. Nonetheless, as it was in the Jerusalem Council, we may bring our contrary perspectives before the Church and the decision of the Church becomes our decision whether it was the day before or not. So long as we are not required to do what God forbids or forbidden to do what God requires, then the teaching of the Church is our teaching.
The Church may not employ one Scripture against another to nullify the plain word of God. If God is love and if God commands a certain thing, then that command is an expression of God’s love regardless of how hard it may be to hear. The Church cannot use the command to love thy neighbor to invalidate the prohibition against adultery.
XXI. Of the Authority of General Councils. Omitted from the Abridged Version
This article is not universal in application and is best addressed through instruments of polity. It is not discussed in this essay.
XXII. Of Purgatory. Article 14 Abridged Version
>The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.<
The truths defended in the 22nd Article are Biblically sound and vitally important. I hope that some religious body has both the insight and courage to completely rewrite the statement so that these truths can be heard as something other than a finger-pointing invective against five-hundred-year-old abuses of the Catholic Church. Most of the practices described are of the occult. They are just as likely to be found among Protestants as Catholics though by different names.
The concept of purgatory is founded on the false teaching of salvation by works. If you do not have enough good works on the balance sheet to pay your fare all the way to New Jerusalem, then you have a chance to work off the remaining debt after you die, or maybe someone still living will perform enough extra good works to pay off the remaining fare for you. Purgatory is an attractive absurdity. Under other names it is gaining in popularity among protestants. It is a popular premise for Disney and Hallmark movies.
The dangers of the other practices are not so immediately obvious. They are good things gone bad.
Relics can be helpful as aids to worship, but they are uniquely prone to leaving their proper place. It is one thing to visit a museum and view the tools of a 19th century doctor and experience an appreciation for the hardships and challenges they overcame in accomplishing their work. It is quite another thing to suppose that merely by being in the presence of these relics or by touching them one will receive special protection from disease. At that point they are no longer aids to our memory and appreciation, they become amulets or talismans.
Icons are an aid to devotional life when used as a reminder of specific acts of God through his people. They are Bible stories presented in works of art. However, if we believe that prayers said in the presence of an icon have greater power and result in more certain action, then there is a term for that too: the “prayers” become incantations and spells.
Likewise, it is valuable to study the lives of the Saints. It is important to set aside days in the Church year to remember God’s acts in salvation history and the people he used. Methodists would do well to recover that practice. It is unwise and unfaithful to attempt to communicate directly with the Saints or invoke their action on our behalf. In any other context this would be referred to by its proper term: communicating with the dead. It is forbidden. Nor is God too busy to hear our prayers so that we need to address them to other beings. We have direct access to God.
Article 22 is important but easily misunderstood. It is not the abuses of pre-reformation Rome with which we need to concern ourselves. The Article is a warning of the Biblical prohibition against inviting occult practices into the Church. The Church has historically warned people away from amulets, spells, incantations, and communicating with the dead—not because there is nothing to them—but because there is something to them and it is bad for us in this life and the next.
XXIII. Of Ministering in the Congregation Omitted from the Abridged Version. This Article is not universal in application and is best addressed through instruments of polity. It is not discussed in this essay.
XXIV. Of Speaking in the Congregation in such a Tongue as the people understandeth.
Article 15 Abridged Version. The Article is self-explanatory and without controversy. It is not treated in this essay.
XXV. Of the Sacraments. Article 16 Abridged Version
>Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God’s good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him.
There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.
Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures, but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.
The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same, they have a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul saith.<
Our doctrinal heritage applies the designation of Sacrament only to the two Gospel Sacraments. Left unresolved among Methodists is the treatment of the remaining five sacraments (lower case). I suspect there is consensus that the Rite of Holy Matrimony is something qualitatively different from a rite for blessing pets or backpacks.
XXVI. Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacraments.
Omitted from the Abridged Version. Addresses matters with which modern Methodists are uncomfortable and will be discussed at the end of the essay.
XXVII. Of Baptism. Article 17 Abridged Version
>Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed, Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God.<
The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.
{I have no explanation for the omission of the italicized provisions from Article 27. They seem consistent with Methodist doctrine and helpful to our understanding. The provision concerning adoption is particularly needful for 21st century North America. It is a corrective to the belief that “child of God” is a synonym for human. The omitted words make it clear that we are adopted into the family of God through the work of the Holy Spirit. It ought to be retained. Perhaps someone who has applied greater scrutiny to the terms can enlightened us as to why they should not be retained}
XXVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper. Article 18 Abridged Version. The Article is self-explanatory and without controversy. It is not treated in this essay.
XXIX. Of the Wicked, which eat not the Body of Christ in the use of the Lord’s Supper.
Omitted from the Abridged Version. Addresses matters with which modern Methodists are uncomfortable and will be discussed at the end of the essay.
XXX. Of both Kinds. Article 19 Abridged Version. The Article is self-explanatory and without controversy. It is not treated in this essay.
XXXI. Of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross. Article 20 Abridged Version
>The Offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.<
The Cross of Christ is not a mere moral example. As an oblation it is Christ willingly offering himself as a sacrifice. As propitiation, it appeases the just wrath we have brought on ourselves as God reconciles us to himself. This perfect redemption is finished in the one act of Christ upon the cross.
XXXII. Of the Marriage of Priests. Article 21 Abridged Version. The Article is self-explanatory and without controversy. It is not treated in this essay.
Proposed New Article
{If there is any warrant for retaining an article on the marriage of ministers—and I believe there is—then there is even greater justification for inserting a new article at this point concerning the Biblical affirmation of the ministry of women. The principle behind the practice is not a simple matter of polity. The principle does not vary according to customs of time and place. We will explore that in greater detail in the last essay of this series which addresses proposed new articles.}
{Since the beginning, God calls whomever he will and sends whomever he will to accomplish his purpose. Through both prophets and apostles God has expressly declared he will pour out his Spirit on all flesh, on sons and daughters, young and old, male and female. All ministers are expected to demonstrate the authenticity of their call through their devotion to Christ, a life that becomes the Gospel, the love of God shed abroad in their heart, and gifts and graces that are evidenced by their fruit. Those who would silence God’s ministers through appeal to a false teaching that God cannot work through women or men, young or old, learned or simple, are in grave error. The ordination of women is retained in the Church.}
XXXIII. OF EXCOMMUNICATE PERSONS, HOW THEY ARE TO BE AVOIDED
Omitted from the abridged Version. Addresses matters with which modern Methodists are uncomfortable and will be discussed at the end of the essay.
XXXIV. Of the Traditions of the Church. Article 22 Abridged Version
>It is not necessary that traditions and ceremonies be in all places one, or utterly like; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversity of countries, times, and men’s manners, so that nothing be ordained against God’s Word. Whosoever, through his private judgment, willingly and purposely, doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly, (that others may fear to do the like,) as he that offendeth against the common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the Magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren.<
Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish, Ceremonies or Rites of the Church ordained only by man’s authority, so that all things be done to edifying.<
The abridged version of this Article omits reference to a national Church and to magistrates. That is understandable as these things do not concern us. It also replaces the phrase traditions and ceremonies (lower case) with rites and ceremonies. This latter amendment changes the meaning of the Article—and not in a good way. The situation is further complicated in that the 20th Article is missing from abridged version of the Articles. That Article specifically addresses Rites and Ceremonies and the authority of the Church.
We do not believe, as the abridged version of this Article states, that every particular church may create, change, or abolish rites and ceremonies of the Church. May a church abolish the eucharistic rite? May a church alter the baptismal rite to conform to customs and sensitivities of its community by replacing the names Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? May a church change the marriage ceremony to acknowledge temporary cohabitation? The only restriction in the abridged Article is that these things be done with the consensus of a church and not the private judgement of an individual. Retaining the original language of traditions and ceremonies and restoring Article 20 on Rites and Ceremonies and the authority of the Church would make it clear that this was never intended to be the case.
What Article 34 is making allowance for (as it appears above with its original wording) is variation in traditions of a church—not variations in the Tradition of the Church. This difference is obscured in the abridged Article. It has been used to justify much unwise experimentation with pagan practice and resulted in syncretic a religion . This is the kind of mess we get in to when we try to work from an abridged religion.
The intent of Article 34 is to allow for the creation or abolition of ceremonies of a church but not the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church. That which is variable and mutable, the traditions that “may be changed according to the diversity of countries, times, and men’s manners” consist of such things as the tempo of music, mode of dress, or the syntax of the liturgy. These need not be the same in all places. Ceremonies that may be created or abolished by a church include things such as a ceremony recognizing a prominent event in the life of the worshiping community or a ritual recognizing a rite of a passage of a member of the community. These are non-essentials which are neither commanded nor forbidden by Scripture.
Even the eucharistic rite may be pastorally adapted to a church so long as it does not contradict the content of the Rites established under the authority of the Church in the missing Article 20. There is no magic in using a prescribed set of words for the eucharist (though that does have its benefit and ought not be dismissed lightly). It may be advisable to add words appropriate to the day and occasion, to rephrase a passage in words that better communicate the truth to the community, or to include extemporaneous prayer.
We do not expect every minister in every church to deliver the identical sermon on a given Sunday. They are free to communicate the message in words and style appropriate to the customs of their time and place. What they are not free to alter is the content of the Gospel. Likewise, ministers are not bound to a rigid liturgy so long as they do not diminish the content of the Rite. Such adaptations should be done cautiously. There is great value in the consistent use of a common rite, but it is not essential.
XXXV. Of the Homilies Omitted from the Abridged Version
This article is not universal in application and is best addressed through other doctrinal standards and instruments of polity. It is not discussed in this essay.
XXXVI. Of Consecration of Bishops and Ministers Omitted from the Abridged Version
This article is not universal in application and is best addressed through instruments of polity. It is not discussed in this essay.
THE UMCOMFORTABLE ARTICLES
Now we can look at the three omitted Articles which address matters with which modern Methodists are uncomfortable. We will discuss them as a group after reading the Articles.
XXVI. Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers, which Hinders not the Effect of the Sacraments.
>Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes the evil have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ’s, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their Ministry, both in hearing the Word of God, and in receiving the Sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ’s ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God’s gifts diminished from such as by faith, and rightly, do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ’s institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men.<
XXIX. Of the Wicked, which Eat Not the Body of Christ in the Use of the Lord’s Supper.
>The Wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as Saint Augustine saith) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ; yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ: but rather, to their condemnation, do eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing.<
XXXIII. Of Excommunicate Persons, How They Are to be Avoided.
>That person which by open denunciation of the Church is rightly cut off from the unity of the Church, and excommunicated, ought to be taken of the whole multitude of the faithful, as an Heathen and Publican, until he be openly reconciled by penance, and received into the Church by a Judge that hath authority thereunto.<
The Articles have five things in common:
- All three Articles address Sacramental practice, something which has been seriously degraded over the last fifty years.
- All three Articles bear full Biblical warrant. They arise from Scriptural authority and result from a plain reading of the plain sense of Scripture.
- They are the Sacramental practice from the days of the Apostles, throughout the early Church. into our Anglican heritage, and they are the practice of early Methodists. They were not challenged amongst Methodists until the mid-19th Century, and they were not overthrown until the latter half of the 20th Century.
- They continue to be the practice of orthodox Christians in every part of the world.
- Modern Methodists have been conditioned to recoil from them.
Just as worldly people have been conditioned by their secular institutions to recoil from anyone who speaks of sin or salvation, so too have modern Methodists been conditioned to recoil from any talk of Communion as anything other than an open invitation to a dinner party with no conditions on conduct at the table. The Church has practiced open communion since the beginning. The current practice is indiscriminate communion (the matter is treated in depth here.) Article XIX requires the Sacraments be duly administered. That means they must not be inappropriately or indiscriminately administered.
It is the responsibility of the Church to maintain its integrity through the proper nurture and discipline of its members. Those who knowingly and unrepentantly assault that integrity remove themselves from communion and place their souls in danger. If they are not either corrected or removed, then they will undermine the entire church.
Current Sacramental malpractice will not be corrected by merely restoring words to a book but neither will they be corrected without them, The Global Methodist Church needs to examine our Sacramental practices from their origins and not simply carry over the practices of United Methodists.
If the Global Methodist Church is to succeed in its quest to restore Biblical authority and recover the spirit of the primitive religion of the early Methodists, then our Sacramental practice is going to look a whole lot different. In the absence of any clear and consistent voice of authority concerning the Sacraments our current practice is to let each do what seems right in their own eyes. That cannot long maintain.
These three Articles which guided the early Methodists need to be restored. They ought to be used as part of our Doctrinal Standards for developing new liturgy, invigorating old ones, and shaping the Christian formation of our communities.
RELATED ARTICLES
Recovering Doctrinal Integrity III: The Way of Salvation (Revised)
Recovering Doctrinal Integrity II: The Rule of Faith
Recovering Doctrinal Integrity I: Nature of the Triune God
A Radical Proposal for Recovery of Doctrine: Introduction (Revised)
The Burden of Open Communion: Rescuing the Eucharist from the United Methodist Church, Final Part
Leave a Reply