The Social Principles in Global Perspective

by

GC Archive

The history of adaptations of the Social Principles in Europe illustrates some of the challenges facing The United Methodist Church as a “worldwide” denomination. Between 1972 and 2012, the Social Principles in the European Central Conferences were not simply translations of the same text into various languages, but rather cultural adaptations of the General Conference witness. Central Conferences are regional conferences of the UMC outside the United States and are granted the power to adapt the general Book of Discipline (GD2012, ¶543.7) for missional needs. The multiplicity of Social Principles documents simultaneously in use throughout the “worldwide” UMC prior to 2012 brings to light a meaningful, though neglected, cross-cultural conversation within the denomination.

At no point in the history of the UMC has there existed a single bookshelf or library containing all of the translations, adaptations, and adapted portions of the Book of Discipline currently in use across the denomination. The U.S.-centrism of the General Conference document becomes readily apparent through Central Conference attempts to translate and adapt the document. Simply acknowledging this history is part of the challenge of becoming a “worldwide” denomination.

A Call to Accountability in 2000

In 2000, the Executive Committee of the United Methodist Central Conference of Central and Southern Europe issued a call to accountability to the entire denomination regarding the social witness of General Conference. Through a petition, “Concerning the Meaning of the Social Principles,” they raised justice concerns about the relevance of a document written primarily from a U.S. context for United Methodists around the world. This petition could have been more accurately titled, “Concerning the Authority of the Social Principles,” since it took General Conference to task for legislating authoritatively on behalf of the entire church statements that clearly did not apply to those outside the United States.

In this petition, the Central Conference of Central and Southern Europe asked General Conference to consider the diverse experiences and contexts of worldwide United Methodists when making ethical pronouncements and “to clearly indicate which part, or parts, of the [Social] Principles have the characteristic of being fundamental, . . . in accordance with the Gospel, and . . . therefore valid for all Christians.”

“Irrelevance Abroad”

The Central Conference of Central and Southern Europe considered the U.S. cultural commitments of the General Conference Social Principles an injustice to those outside of the United States. Their 2000 petition concludes: “If the General Conference . . . doesn’t wish to speak only to the Christians in the United States of America, then it must seek to do justice to the diversity of the world” by hearing and taking into consideration the diverse experiences and cultural perspectives of United Methodists from across the entire “worldwide” denomination.

United Methodists in European Central Conferences found the U.S. perspective of the Social Principles readily apparent and problematic. The Central Conference of Central and Southern Europe’s 2000 petition declared, “The Social Principles were prepared and formulated by a Board of the General Conference, which itself consisted entirely of Americans. This means that the opinions and critiques were formulated from the perspective of the existing situation in American (United States of America) society.”

The charge of U.S.-centrism in 2000 was not a new critique of the Social Principles. In 1985, Walter Muelder was critical of appeals to Americanism in the UMC and noted that this church was “largely preoccupied with domestic issues.” Indeed, the 1972 Social Principles originated within a study commission that did not include anyone from outside the United States in its membership. Paul Ramsey, a member of the Social Principles Study Commission, warned about the “irrelevance abroad” of General Conference’s particular dictates on social issues.

 “We, the people…”

As a Spanish-language translator of the general Discipline 2004, for use in the United States observed, “Naturally, the Discipline is the byproduct of the English-thinking mind, with its patterns of Anglo-American thought” (my own translation). Whenever the Social Principles invoked the phrases “our society,” “our culture,” “in a society [implied: such as ours],” or “our government,” the implication was one society shared by author and audience, most clearly understood as the United States. What might at first seem a universal scope turned out to exclude those from outside the United States in many ways.

While there was no explicit mention of the United States or its Constitution in the Social Principles, its preamble began, “We, the people called United Methodists, affirm our faith. . . .” This affirmation asserted two identities simultaneously. “We, the people . . .” echoed the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, indicating U.S. identity and implying some sort of connection between the two preambles and the documents they introduce. While the allusion was subtle, the phrase is so culturally resonant that any school child in the United States could continue the quote, “ . . . of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union. . . .” The second half of this phrase, “the people called United Methodists,” echoed the early moniker for adherents to Wesley’s movement: “the people called Methodists.” The result of this dual formulation was a powerful conflation of U.S. and United Methodist identities.

It is not surprising that European adaptations balked at translating this opening to the Social Principles preamble without adaptation. Indeed, several French and German adaptations begin simply, “We affirm our faith.” Without adaptation, the full, symbolic meaning of “we the people” would have either failed to resonate with European United Methodists or it would have caused them to wonder if one must first be a U.S. citizen in order to be a United Methodist.

Translation and Adaptation

The U.S.-centrism of the Social Principles created numerous translation difficulties, usually handled through subtle (and unacknowledged) editorial changes. For example, in 2002, the Germany Central Conference adapted what is perhaps the most controversial phrase of the entire Social Principles document, “we do not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider this practice incompatible with Christian teaching,” to read “[a] majority in the church interprets the Bible in such a way that it cannot approve of the practice of homosexuality.” Through this adaptation, the Germany Central Conference narrowed the debate to Biblical interpretation, rather than Christian teaching more broadly considered, and lessened the sharpness of the statement by speaking in terms of disapproval rather than incompatibility. The 2002 German document was the most extensively adapted of all European versions: fifty of its sixty subsections had been altered in some way.

The practice of adapting the Social Principles officially came to an end in 2012. In May 2012, Bishop Patrick Streiff, on behalf of the European Central Conferences and the General Board of Church and Society, successfully petitioned General Conference “to lead and initiate a process to revise the Social Principles . . . with the goal of making them more succinct, theologically founded and globally relevant.” At the same time, the 2012 General Conference declared the existing document to be part of the global Book of Discipline (GD2012, ¶101) prior to any attempt to revise it with a global perspective.

Towards Global Relevance

The history of European Social Principles adaptations offers both challenge and opportunity for United Methodism. One challenge is decentering the U.S. perspective in the Social Principles legislated by General Conference. Bishop Heinrich Bolleter, in his 2005 Episcopal Address to the Central Conference of Central and Southern Europe, named “[r]eligion and national identity” as one of the primary issues that the denomination will have to face in the near future. He was speaking within his own context, but his remark applies to the entire United Methodist Church.

The U.S. flavor of the Social Principles posed a dilemma for a church claiming a prophetic voice within and a constituency beyond the borders of the United States. In 1961, Walter Muelder claimed, “American Methodism needs the corrective criticisms of both World Methodism and the World Council of Churches” in order “to correct the conformist tendencies of denominations within the various countries.” Today, The United Methodist Churchhas such a global correction within its own institutional structures. United Methodists in Africa, the Philippines, and Europe provide a corrective for the U.S.-centrism that characterized the Social Principles legislated by General Conference. In the effort to make the Social Principles more globally relevant, General Conference has the opportunity to learn from the cross-cultural dialogue that had “already begun” regarding the Social Principles in Europe.

The dialogue begun in the UMC in Europe can promote an honest, self-critical reflection on the Social Principles if United Methodists in the United States are willing to join in this conversation as equals rather than as dominating partners. Bishop Bolleter also asserted in his 2005 Episcopal Address, “unity is not uniformity.” In developing a global version of Social Principles, The United Methodist Church has the opportunity to maintain a unique forum for expressing the social witness of United Methodists; to insist on uniformity may only serve to hide culturally significant differences in moral discourse within the denomination. Will uniformity—a new, global edition of Social Principles—render this form of witness more or less relevant to United Methodists outside the United States?

In this light, the allusion to the U.S. Constitution in the document’s preface can be read as a prophetic call to accountability. Whether “We, the people” can indeed speak for all of “the people called United Methodists” may well depend on the extent to which United Methodists in the United States can recognize, differentiate, and discuss the cultural commitments expressed through our Social Principles.

The Rev. Dr. Darryl W. Stephens is Director of United Methodist Studies at Lancaster Theological Seminary and a clergy member of the Texas Annual Conference. This article is excerpted and adapted from “A Cross-Cultural Dialogue of Social Principles,” Methodist History 54:2 (Jan 2016), Pages 102-116. A longer analysis is included in his forthcoming book, Methodist Morals: Social Principles, Marriage, and Sexual Sin in the Public Church (University of Tennessee Press, April 2016).