If you can spot the cracks in a foundation, you can predict the demise of the house. A recent story regarding a mainline church underscores how cracks in our doctrine of Scripture can forecast our unfaithfulness elsewhere.
News outlets reported this week that on Sunday, November 23 a United Methodist pastor in Rochester, NY announced from the pulpit his plans to transition into a woman. Notable details included that: his announcement was greeted with support from his congregation; his announcement was made with the support of the UMC, the bishop, and church theology; and, that his own parents requested that he express their disapproval to the congregation.
One pertinent fact is the UMC’s 2024 vote to remove bans on LGBTQ+ clergy and same-sex weddings. The removal of those bans became effective in January 2025. With such broad support on these issues, it is easy to see why this pastor in NY would be met with support both from his superiors and his congregation. Does that 2024 vote represent the crack in the foundation that now leads to sanctioned ungodliness in the pulpit? The vote certainly paved the way, but the crack in the foundation can be found in the denomination's confession of faith. Here is what it has to say about the Holy Bible:
“We believe the Holy Bible, Old and New Testaments, reveals the Word of God so far as it is necessary for our salvation. It is to be received through the Holy Spirit as the true rule and guide for faith and practice. Whatever is not revealed in or established by the Holy Scriptures is not to be made an article of faith nor is it to be taught as essential to salvation.”
This likely sounds sound to many of us, but there are problems, both in terms of what is said here and in terms of what isn’t. The bottomline is that the UMC does not subscribe to a robust doctrine of inerrancy. (We've taught on inerrancy in recent months, so I won't reproduce that material here. A link to the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy may refresh your memory.) Not only is there no mention of inerrancy, but the statement reads, “We believe the Holy Bible…reveals the Word of God…” For decades this kind of language has been used to espouse belief in the Bible without holding that the Bible actually is the Word of God.
What is the difference between the Bible revealing God’s word and the Bible being God’s word? One key difference is that if the Bible merely reveals God’s word there could be parts of it that are in error. A cup may contain water while also containing other substances at the same time. If it is poured, water will come out, but so will other things. You as the pourer must have some mechanism for separating the water from the pollutants. To be fair, that’s my analogy, not the UMC’s, but it demonstrates the problem with the language of their statement of faith. Their statement holds that the Bible contains truth; it does not assert that the Bible is in its totality truth.
On the other hand, if the Bible is God’s word, every part of it is true and authoritative. One doesn’t need to determine what is true and what is in error; one only needs sound principles of interpretation.
The second half of the UMC statement on Scripture also contributes to the crack: “Whatever is not revealed in or established by the Holy Scriptures is not to be made an article of faith nor it is to be taught as essential to salvation.” Sounds great, right? Shouldn’t we only base our beliefs on the Bible? Surely. The statement just doesn’t go far enough. They have essentially held that everything that anyone believes as doctrinal must be supported by the Bible. They have not gone further and said everything in the Bible must be believed and obeyed. To return to the cup of water analogy, they’ve said, “if you’re going to drink, only get it from this cup.” They’ve not said, “This cup is all essential water; drink the whole thing.”
Here’s where the crack leads to a collapse: If the Bible can contain error, who determines what is true? Who decides what books, passages, verses, or commands are true and therefore authoritative for the believer? Clearly the readers or professing church.
And on the basis of what standard will they make that decision? By what plumbline will the church measure the Scriptures to determine its truthfulness in any particular part? I suggest—and liberal, mainline denominations continue to demonstrate—that when push comes to shove, the plumbline will be nothing more or less than societal norms. Why would I say that? When was the last time a mainline denomination (UMC, PCUSA, UCC, ELCA, etc) did something that brought it into greater conflict with the culture rather than greater harmony?
When the whole bible isn’t true, the whole bible isn’t authoritative. When the whole bible isn’t authoritative, by default, the reader is. And when the reader or readers—whether in isolation or in community—have authority to decide what in the Bible is true and what isn’t, you actually no longer need a Bible. You’re already being driven by the sensibilities of men.
What may seem like small gaps in a statement of faith can lead to congregations not only embracing a woman pastor, but embracing a man rejecting his God-given manhood in the belief that he is a woman pastor.
What we believe matters. What we believe about the Bible is absolutely crucial.
Proverbs 30:5: Every word of God proves true…
Comments