US National Board: The Open Theism and Inclusivism Debate

Part 2

(continued from Part 1)

Steve Dennie

The US National Board

The meeting began, as most meetings do, with a bunch of reports. Those concluded by lunch time, so when the delegates reconvened at 1 p.m., the theological controversies took center stage. A number of students, college personnel, and interested UB ministers and laypersons filled the seats in the back of the Habecker Dining Commons.

Bishop Hirschy wanted to get everything out on the table first, so that nobody could say, "If I had known that, I would have voted differently." So first, Tom Brodbeck, chairman of the Commission on Ministry, read their report. Then Dennis Miller, co-chair (with Dr. Dowden) of the Ad Hoc Committee, read that report. Then George Kreger, superintendent of Michindoh Conference, read five resolutions passed by a specially-called session of the annual conference. Then other conferences had a chance to read their statements or at least call attention to them; statements from Michigan, Mid-Atlantic, Midwest, and Sandusky conferences had already been distributed.

Having gotten all of this onto the floor, Bishop Hirschy backed up to the Commission on Ministry report and the fun started.

Commission on Ministry Report

Nobody had any real problem with the Commission's statement on Divine Foreknowledge (Open Theism). There were people who defended the right to pursue the ideas and didn't want to totally squelch the academic pursuit of truth. But it was pretty well agreed that Open Theism wasn't a United Brethren thing.

There were several amendments to the statement on Inclusivism, mostly to clarify the understanding that God could draw unevangelized people to himself on his own, without those persons having specific knowledge of Jesus Christ (don't mistakenly read any hints of universalism here; followers of other religions aren't covered).

After a lot of discussion, the delegates eventually voted on these theological positions. They passed 36-4. That sent a very clear message to the Board of Trustees on where the Church stands.

Implications

The report also included three "Implications for Ministers, Churches, and Denominational Agencies."

1. That no ministerial candidate holding positions different than those expressed above be approved for licensing or ordination in the Church of the United Brethren in Christ, USA.

2. That no minister holding positions different than those expressed above be approved for conference use (supply or placement) in the Church of the United Brethren in Christ, USA.

3. That no associate ministry staff holding positions different than those expressed above be employed by congregations of the Church of the United Brethren in Christ, USA.

The delegates were a bit divided about the implications. There was a vote to delete the implications altogether, and just be content with the theological statements, but that vote lost 22-16.

Then, a fourth implication was added:

4. That all currently licensed/ordained ministry personnel should be required to affirm United Brethren positions on divine foreknowledge and the destiny of the unevangelized.

This implication has its own set of intriguing implications (like, what happens if a longtime UB minister doesn't affirm one of these positions). But so be it.

These four implications passed by a close vote of 22-18.

So the delegates were in strong agreement on where the church stands theologically, but divided on how to apply those stands to our own ministers. When it comes to Huntington College, the implications only apply to UB licensed ministers serving at the college.