Editor’s Note #1: Welcome Wesleyan Covenant Association Readers! We’ve been linked by their recent blog post. If you’d like to know more about your organization, click here for all of our writings on the WCA, including our massively popular articles like these:
- Selling “Confidence,” the WCA reframes the UMC crisis they created
- Three Takeaways from the Wesleyan Covenant Association Founding Document
- Catering to Culture: The Real Foundations of the WCA. 02: Anti-Institutionalism
Editors Note #2: Here’s a counterpoint to the below article: By the Numbers: How the Resistance can Remain in the UMC.
===
Longtime readers know that Hacking Christianity is a clearinghouse for progressive Christian content. I’m happy to provide the community with outside perspectives and guest writings that benefit our conversations. Even when I personally do not align fully with their conclusions, I hope the community sees the value added to our conversations by guest content.
The following is an original essay sent in by a United Methodist elder and seminary professor in Texas. Splitting or staying together is an emotional subject right now, and I appreciated the breadth and depth of this treatment of the topic, even if I’m not as firmly in the “we must split” camp as this author is.
If this is too emotional a topic for you right now, feel free to come back to it later when it can be better digested. And if you have a counterpoint to the below, you are welcome to submit your own article according to these guidelines.
===
Humpty Dumpty Can’t Be Put Back Together Again: Why the United Methodist Church Must Split
O. Wesley Allen, Jr.
Lois Craddock Perkins Professor of Homiletics
Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University
The General Conference of the United Methodist Church has been arguing about homosexuality for nearly a half a century, about 20% of the time the Methodist church in America has been in existence. As the years have passed, the divide in the denomination has become deeper and deeper. Rumors and suggestions of schism bubbled up from time to time, especially starting in 2004 when some conservatives suggested the possibility of an “amicable separation.” At that time I, as a progressive who represented no one but myself, wrote a short piece for the Christian Century agreeing with those voices in the Confessing Movement that the time had come to consider such a possibility (“Let’s talk theology: How Divided are United Methodists?,” June 15, 2004), but the vast majority of those on the left and in the denominational bureaucracy would not even engage in such a conversation.
In the 2016 General Conference, the division had become became so strong…and so ugly…and so dysfunctional…that no force applied by Robert’s Rules of Order could help the denomination get any real work done. Division (and not an amicable one) seemed inevitable, but the body tried to apply one last drop of superglue to the denomination in the most desperate and unlikely of strategies: beg the bishops to lead the church into a way forward.
So in good episcopal fashion, what did the Council of Bishops do? They passed the buck. Maladapted to leading as a group, they formed the Commission on the Way Forward. The Commission spent months to present three models that everyone already knew were our basic choices (albeit details were spelled out in new ways): the Traditional, One Church, and Connectional plans. Then the bishops voted to support the One Church Plan…well, sort of. The bishops would not (i.e., could not) do the work of coming to a point of full consensus to lead the church. The moment the Council of Bishops decided to bring all three plans to the General Conference, further conflict was inevitable. Then the moment the Judicial Council determined other proposals on moving forward could be submitted for consideration (ultimately adding a modified Traditional Plan and a Simple Plan to the mix), chaos was inevitable. While the middle and the left of the denomination were filled with hope rooted in holy denial, the right was organizing…to win and/or to leave.
Supporters of the One Church Plan voted for unity in the midst of disagreement. They (we) hoped it could be acceptable to all (or at least enough to hold the bulk of the denomination together) because it allowed persons, congregations, and conferences to make decisions about homosexuality at the “local,” contextual level. But it could not be acceptable to those on the right because it still asked them to be in communion with gay ministers, churches performing gay weddings, and (most of all) a lesbian bishop. The middle and left came to St. Louis to vote for unity and inclusion (social holiness), but the right came to vote for purity (personal holiness). Purity won the vote of the day, but, as we shall see, it cannot win completely. So now split is not only inevitable, it is necessary.
A Demographical Argument for Splitting
Neither side can win this battle in the way they want. The moderates and progressives may be a vast majority in the context of the United States, but in a global denomination, they are a significant minority. Some centrist and progressive voices keep lamenting how close the vote was, but it actually was not close at all. In today’s cultural climate, any politician would love to have the kind of margin we saw at General Conference (especially given that a number of international delegates were denied visas and likely would have added to the margin of victory). Moreover, the number of international delegates to future General Conferences will continue to increase while U.S. delegates decrease. In no time in the near future will the numbers add up to the moderates and progressives having enough of a majority to change the denomination’s stance on homosexuality. This is why the possibility of the Judicial Council ruling in April that parts of the Traditional Plan are unconstitutional does not really diminish the victory the traditionalists won.
On the other hand, the conservatives do not have enough support to achieve the level of purity they seek either. They can keep the official language prohibiting homosexuality in place (and strengthen it or expand upon it) forever, but they do not have a wide enough majority to change the constitution to put in place the kinds of accountability and penalties they are calling for. Thus, in no foreseeable future will they be able to force the Western Jurisdiction to remove a lesbian bishop, Boards of Ordained Ministry to exclude homosexual candidates for ordination, or bishops to punish clergy for presiding at same-sex weddings.
We are left with the worst sort of stalemate: the Traditional Plan is in effect in denominational law while in parts of the denomination the One Church Plan (or the Simple Plan) is being practiced in different congregations, conferences, and jurisdictions of the church in parts of the U.S. and Europe. All the while each side demonizes the other. Ecclesial disobedience will more and more become the new norm for the progressives, and the conservatives will cry foul with louder and louder voices. Meanwhile, congregations and conferences that are moderate and/or divided will lose members and likely become existentially distant from both the left and the right.
We must split.
A Hermeneutical Argument for Splitting
I believe the left has long misunderstood the right when it comes to the current division (thinking of arguments about homosexuality only in terms of social justice), and that all have misunderstood what is really at the root of our current division. Sexual orientation and gender identity are not the root issues. As a straight, cisgender, progressive ally, I care deeply about these issues and view the discrimination against and oppression of LGBTQIA+ persons as unjust and against God’s will (e.g., see my work with Emily Askew, Beyond Heterosexism in the Pulpit {Eugene: Cascade, 2015}). But I must also recognize that my passion about the issue does not necessitate that it is the core issue at hand. The church’s debate about sexual orientation and gender identity is a symptom of a much deeper divide.
One might immediately assume the root issue, then, is biblical interpretation. Some read the Scripture literally, others do not. Some read passages related to sex with people of the same gender as eternally relevant and others see them as outdated, based on their ancient cultural context.
Speaking more broadly, the hermeneutical divide is related, on the one side, to UM evangelicals calling for orthodoxy. By “orthodoxy” they mean adherence to classic, traditional expressions of the Christian faith as literal (inerrant?) Truth—absolute Truth with a capital T. Progressives, on the other hand, hold the ancient expressions of the faith as authoritative but also as culturally-bound expressions that require translation into current idiom to be relevant and meaningful.
The conservative use of “orthodoxy” is pejorative in that it implies everyone else is heretical, and I am unwilling to accept that every theological position that follows the lead of Schleiermacher is in some way or another outside of Christian faithfulness. I believe progressives and revisionists need to reclaim the language of orthodoxy—the early, “orthodox” church was in a constant state of revising its theology as the church grew and moved into new contexts. To be orthodox is to be about the task of interpreting anew. The vocabulary of orthodoxy aside, the hermeneutical differences show we United Methodists employ the Wesleyan Quadrilateral in radically different ways. Evangelicals see the progressives as making what they will of ancient Scripture and Tradition, and progressives see evangelicals as denying the relevance of contemporary reason and experience.
We must split.
A Theological Argument for Splitting
While hermeneutics is, to be sure, a deeper part of the issue than the debate concerning homosexuality, it too is a symptom of something deeper still. As one biblically trained, I would like to think that exegesis shapes our theology, but in reality it is usually our theology that shapes our exegesis, and then we work in a circular fashion within our complementary biblical interpretations and theological reflections, leading us to predetermined stances on issues like sexual orientation and gender identity.
It is a basic difference in theological orientation that lies at the foundation of our current impasse. In Preaching and the Human Condition: Loving God, Self, and Others (Nashville: Abingdon, 2016), I argue that regardless of their theological orientation, preachers need to deal with all three dimensions of brokenness in the human condition: the vertical relationship between humans and God, the horizontal relationship between humans and humans, and the inner relationship between a human and herself or himself. But I also recognize that one of these three dimensions is theologically primary for each preacher (with the other two flowing out of that dimension).
That starting point makes all the difference in the world, and the current divide in the UMC is shaped by two very different starting points. The traditionalists emphasize the vertical relationship characterized in the command to love God with our whole heart, soul, strength, and mind. In traditional evangelical vocabulary, this is often expressed in terms of the importance placed on individuals having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. The result is an emphasis on individual morality and devotion, with sin being viewed primarily as disobedience to the Sovereign God.
Progressives (and to a great extent, moderates), however, start with the horizontal relationship. In this view, the command to love our neighbor as ourselves is seen as the primary (perhaps even synonymous) expression of loving God with our whole being. The liberal theological program of the mainline church of the last two and a half centuries, the social gospel movement, and more recent liberation theologies grow out of this orientation in different ways. The result is an emphasis on social ethics, with sin being viewed primarily as systemic, structural, corporate evil in which we inescapably participate but against which the God of justice and peace calls us to struggle prophetically.
There is much overlap between these two positions (obviously conservatives care about social ethics and progressives care about individual morality). But with the different emphases, the depth and width of the chasm between these vertical and horizontal starting points has become so significant that at times the different UM camps seem to be practicing two different religions or Christianities, in spite of the vocabulary and practices we share. Indeed, we view the Missio Dei and the church’s participation in that mission in radically different ways on the two sides of the current divide.
Consider the divide from this perspective: Following the Reformation, the first divisions in Protestantism dealt to a great degree with differences in liturgical and especially sacramental theologies and practices. Consequently and over time, differences in polity drove further wedges in the Protestant movement. Now, after a century of liturgical reform (and especially after Vatican II), worship across the so-called mainline denominations looks very much the same. The flow of the liturgy and sacramental prayers are so close that most people in the pews couldn’t tell the difference. Moreover, most laity are less committed to certain forms of polity and ecclesiastical structures than they once were. Instead today, the divide in Protestantism is very much in terms of right and left, vertical versus horizontal. Evangelicals in the UMC are more at home with evangelicals in other denominations than with progressive United Methodists. Similarly, progressive (and moderate?) United Methodists are more at home with mainliners in other traditions that emphasize social justice than with conservatives in the UMC.
We must split.
Homosexuality as an Argument for Splitting
It is only when we view the issue of inclusion of the LGBTQIA+ community in the church through the lens of the hermeneutical and theological polarity described above that we can see why it is the symptom of our conflict that has garnered so much of our attention and passion and why neither position will or can budge. The two sides view the issue from completely different angles of what they think is being faithful to the gospel.
For evangelicals, who hold to a traditional hermeneutic rooted in a vertical starting point for understanding the human condition and God’s response to it, being gay and engaging in homosexual behavior is sinful and immoral. It is disobedience/an offense against God, whom we are to love with our whole being, in ways declared absolutely in the ancient Scripture and Tradition. The Church’s ethical response to homosexuality is to maintain purity/holiness as best as possible and call gay people to repentance so that they might better live according to God’s will.
For liberals, who hold to a historical-critical hermeneutic rooted in a horizontal starting point for understanding the human condition and God’s response to it, being gay is as natural and a God-graced gift as being straight. As informed by experience and reason (especially contemporary psychology), being gay is healthy and normal. Instead of thinking of sex as a moral issue in terms of whether sex partners should be of different genders (assuming a binary view of gender that many progressives would reject), progressives view homosexuality through an ethical lens. They seek a sexual ethic that applies to all, asking what level of consent, love, and commitment are required for sex to be appropriate in terms of God’s call for us to love our neighbors as ourselves. Apart from the question of individual ethics, the church’s corporate ethical response to homosexuality is to be as just, inclusive, and loving as we understand God to be—calling all people, regardless of sexual orientation, to higher ways of living according to God’s will.
The differences between viewing the issue of sexual orientation (and by extension gender identification) through the lenses of a traditional hermeneutic versus a historical-critical one, a vertical versus a horizontal starting point for reflecting on the human condition, and a moral versus an ethical approach to sexuality leaves the conservative and progressive camps of the denomination in irreconcilable positions.
We must split.
Shifting Metaphors for the Argument for Splitting
One place where progressives, moderates, and conservatives seem to agree is how to label the possibility of the denomination splitting. The metaphors usually employed relate to divorce. This metaphor is appropriate in that it names the pain, grief, and animosity at play in the current conflict.
Over the years since I wrote my piece arguing for amicable separation in 2004, I have shifted the metaphor of a possible split from the arena of marriage to the arena of siblings. Siblings are raised in the same household; and children growing up, leaving home, and going their separate ways is a rite of passage to be celebrated. And in spite of taking very different life paths and growing to hold significantly different values, grown-up siblings can still love and respect each other. They are and can still behave like family even when not living in the same house: distant family is still family. Shifting the metaphor for a denominational split from divorce to siblings growing up and growing apart allowed me to think of the denomination celebrating (even if the celebration had a melancholy tone to it) the potentiality of the futures of our different movements while we continue to be in conversation around our common heritage and look for ways to share resources and join forces in certain kinds of ministry (e.g., disaster relief) without demonizing each other.
The problem is that we have remained together in such deep conflict so long now that the animosity and pain are such high levels that the metaphor of siblings coming-of-age is flawed. A better image of our current situation is that of grown siblings whose parent has died. We are all mourning, and as with many families in situations of grief, our worst sides come out and we are not getting along well at all. But we have three tasks at hand that must be accomplished. First, we must lay our beloved parent to rest, committing the past denomination’s being into God’s care. Second, we must dispose of our parent’s possessions, dividing them among the heirs. We can act out of our pain and anger and do this litigiously, or we can lay aside our brokenness for the moment and choose what each sibling gets with fairness and love. Conservatives are already starting to talk publicly about financial resources held by the denomination as well as influence over and control of church-related institutions (such as seminaries); progressives need to be having these same conversations or we will find ourselves in the situation of the moderates of the Southern Baptist Convention. And the two groups need to be talking to each other. And, third, we must get on with our lives without our former denominational parent being there for us, leaning into God’s future as new, discrete Methodist/Wesleyan movements of some sort or another. Maybe (hopefully) we will find ways in the future to sit at a table together for Thanksgivings or family reunions. Maybe not. But we can offer each other peace, love, and blessing as we go our different ways now, all children of the same parent, all sharing the same Wesleyan DNA.
It is time to lay aside any denial. Time to quit imaging the denomination as we know it somehow salvageable. Time to quit being tolerant of being together in ways that continue to inflict pain in a multitude of directions. Time to quit playing chicken to see if the other side will leave. “All the king’s horses and all the king’s men couldn’t…”
As with fifteen years ago, I identify with the progressive end of the United Methodist Church, but I write as someone who represents no one but myself. While I am pleased that so many voices have arisen that speak loudly in support of our LGBTQIA+ members, I am dismayed that so many of those same voices continue to
We must split.
O. Wesley Allen, Jr., is an elder in the United Methodist Church and the Lois Craddock Perkins Professor of Homiletics at Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University. Allen has published widely in areas of homiletics related to postmodernism, current social issues, theology, and the Synoptic Gospels.
===
Your Turn
Thoughts?
Thanks for reading, commenting, and sharing on social media.
Pretty thorough and convincing argument to be made for splitting.
I wonder how that would affect things like UMCOR.
I would suggest that depends on the degree of the split.
If you take the Divorce analogy, either UMCOR gets split or one side ‘wins’ that piece.
If you take the sibling analogy, UMCOR could be similar to a vacation home or peripheral property – all can contribute and coordinate, ownership could be theoretically split.
I have no clue how seminaries and such would be handled.
Allen does a fine job of identifying theological-historical-philosophical realities that compels a “mitosis,’ rather than schism; a division that precedes multiplication rather than a schismatic battle where progress is best defined by body counts. He understandably does not try to address further aspect of our ‘wicked problem,’ i.e., communication and trust deficits (though he does describe some examples), outdated ecclesial structures wise for 1900 but not for 2020, challenges of demographics-finances and the structure of our theological education. Four of our official seminaries, by last GBHEM count, graduated 4 candidates for ordained ministry each and one graduated 5, for which they received in excess of 3M from the denomination (Perkins was NOT one of them). No secular business on earth would be so irrational about expending R&D funds to produce so little for so much, but rice-bowl resistance to change is another reason for healthy division; wise consolidation of our theological education resources to face the 21st century clearly can come no other way…
Hey there Bob – where did you get this information? I’m trying to verify it and can’t find a way to do that through GBHEM’s website. It is very alarming to see this amount of money going towards a relatively small number of candidates.
I found this resource, which might be of interest. There’s a table on page 37 that approximates his counts. I didn’t see enough info to validate his $ total, but I admittedly only skimmed the document quickly.
https://www.gbhem.org/sites/default/files/aumts_2018_sustainability_study.pdf
This is excellent.
Well reasoned, thoughtful, and thorough.
I can’t argue with just about anything here.
Dr. Allen makes excellent theological arugments for split. In my own post-GC writings, I have mostly made the practical political arguments…namely that there is no possible way for a Moderate-Progressive Coalition to “win” the vote at GC. That is a factual reality that cannot, and will not, change.
The only thing I would add to Dr. Allen’s analysis is an appeal to the General Rule to “Do No Harm.”
For years, we Progressives have argued that we must “change at GC” so that we will “stop the harm.”
It is now very clear to me that the entire theory of “change at GC” IS the harm. It is harmful, and foolish, to expect change at the GC level on the issues of homosexuality. That is the political reality of the votes.
What Dr. Allen has done is to bolster that political reality with some very clear theological reasoning.
My very strong belief is that Progressives and Moderates most work with great haste toward creating a “New Thing” in Methodism. That may or may not include the name “United Methodist.” It may or may not include all of the potentially 65-70 percent of churches not affiliated with the WCA.
But these conversations must begin ASAP…as soon after Easter as possible. And we must plan for any and all contingencies. Gone are the times when we can plan for ONE future, and hope and pray it happens.
Some kind of split/and/or separation is coming.
We need to start dreaming and planning for that NOW. If not, we will lose the small, remaining progressive voice in the UMC anywhere except the very safe and secure Western Jurisdiction. If we value that progressive voice, throughout the nation, we must immediately stop believing that change at GC is possible, and start talking…clearly and openly…about any and all potentially good ideas for the future. All ideas except one, will eventually be “bad” ones.
But for now, we must talk openly about these things, and push each other, and push back, about what that future looks like.
To do anything less will be harmful.
I think every church needs to get to the point of standing up and being counted. We know where the WCA stands, and we know where the Reconciled churches stand.
All the rest (and those are certainly a majority of American UMC churches) need to figure out who they are. I wouldn’t be surprised if we ended up with 3 distinct units out of this… which was pretty much what the Connectional Plan had set up, but was regarded as ‘too complicated’.
SMH.
Yes, yes and yes to everything Dr. Allen has written. I am grareful for his clear articulation of the issues at hand. I have felt similarly since 2004 and began saying so publically in 2008. We are two (at least) churches and pretending otherwise is futile (one might say dishonest). I was furious in 2008 when General Conference ended with a Unity Statement. We weren’t unified. I saw a spark of hope in 2016 when the Bishop’s were given the task of helping us to move forward thinking that one of the options they would explore was how to seperate. I was then sadly dissappointed to learn they were only focusing on how to remain “united.”
In response to Eric’s comment that we must begin conversations ASAP about the “new thing” being born out of the rubble of what was the UMC, I agree. We have begun these conversations in the Boston area. I’m sure they are happening elsewhere as well. As one of the facilitators of an upcoming conversation, I am working with others to compose a set of questions around which to focus our conversation as we dream, envision and imagine what can be.
I will be glad to share the outline we’ve developed for the conversation, including the focual questions, after we’ve tried it out this coming Sunday afternoon. At that point we will have gotten feedback on whether the process/questions are helpful and can make revisions as needed.
I believe we have an opportunity to serve as midwives to a “baby” that is urgently asking to be born. As with any birth it will inevitably be painful, messy and of uncertain length. There is also an element of danger. My prayer is that we take great care in ushering in the new thing that is springing forth in the dessert where we have wandered for these past 40+ years.
The truth is that the largest number of churches are the liberal ones. The delegates to GC from the US may be 2/3 progressive but in a recent poll done by UM communications 44% of UMC members self identified as traditional. The percentage of clergy who are progressive is much higher which is how we get a proportion of delegates that are much higher than the laity. Only 20% of the laity self identified as progressive and the rest as moderate. In a split you will find that the largest number of churches will have the laity vote to remain with the traditional group. Looking at the number of delegates to determine the makeup of the denomination is not valid.
The sad state of affairs is the generally accepted position that schism is inevitable. When the needs of the world – primarily the worldwide refugee crisis, social breakdowns opening the door to right wing dictators, healthcare for all, inadequate public education, etc., we, the church, splits over sexual orientation.
This is a false issue! Get over it. Let’s get on with the work of the kingdom of God. This is the call – if your heart is as my heart, lend me your hand. Is Satan standing at the door?
Rev Bert Clayton, retired ‘03
San Antonio,Texas
I have long admired Wes’ knowledge and work within our UMC! I have followed his journey from the beginning. As usual, this article is right on target. Wes has given this a lot of thought and prayer. I appreciate these words so much and I totally agree it is time to step up for the Truth. Thank you Wes. Please continue to lead! You are making a difference.
As long as there are bishops and pastors who don’t follow their vows, we’re already split. And I also say, if there are members who aren’t following all 5 points of their vows, we also have a problem. No vows are multiple choice.
Amen.
I’ve been married to this spouse (UMC) for 35 years as a pastor. This spouse has committed themselves to continue to harm/abuse my children (LGBTQ persons). We now know they won’t change in my lifetime. It’s time for a divorce.
Excellent analogy! In my own life I finally divorced when I realized that keeping my marriage vows was killing me (my spirit)–till death do us part was happening. Recognizing when a relationship is toxic and harmful to your dear (LGBTQ) children means taking action, means separation and divorce–as amicably as possible to minimize the inevitable pain and suffering. It’s past time.
While the author addressed the metaphor of children of divorce, it appeared to be dealt with more on the macro level of the differently-believing, differently-acting “movements” but I don’t see any mention of the “people in the pews” at the local church level. I have long been concerned that any “solutions” to this issue that involve forcing local churches to make “decisions about homosexuality” would result in hastening the death of many local churches that are already close to closing their doors. Additionally, the “solutions” that involve splitting usually don’t deal with the logistical difficulties presented when there’s only one UMC in a town. Where do those people who are the losers in a local church decision go? Yes, I understand that the death of a local church can sometimes result in rebirth, but I’ve also seen (first-hand) local churches die without any rebirth, even in the nearby UMCs receiving the refugees from the closed church.
I don’t have any brilliant solutions to this issue, but I strongly recommend that the consequences at the local church level be strongly considered and discussed in any calls to divide. I’m a member of a local church that isn’t 100% of one mind on this issue–one that is sitting in temporary buildings on a donated 10-acre plot of land that should be making plans and raising money to build a permanent facility, but which might never make it to that stage if forced to decide whether or not to take a stand on full inclusion of LGBTQ+ United Methodists.
Totally agreed on this – I happen to live where there are multiple UMC churches nearby – I could easily pick from 10 options within a very easy driving distance. I know of a church that is more progressive than mine, and considering how the discussions have gone since the GC, I am going to be moving over there this summer.
This is where I think the 3 prong Connectional plan was the best option – have a conservative, a moderate, and a progressive branch. Each church would have to decide where they belong.
“Each church would have to decide where they belong”
JR, I was trying to point out that forcing such a choice on local churches might result in the premature death of many local churches, so I’m not clear how “totally agreed” we are, as many people don’t have other options nearby more compatible with their personal beliefs.
Hi David,
But if those churches just decide to not do anything, they are defaulting into the Conservative camp. And progressives are going to leave at some point (if there’s not a split, GC 2020 is going to tighten the screws a bit, as the WCA will have had time to fix the errors in their legal text and the numbers to push it through).
In my church, the leadership is pushing a ‘nothing to see here’ message, while 15-20% of the population is looking to get past Pentecost and then move on. If the leadership had stood up and taken a stand – even a moderate one – we wouldn’t be looking at enough of an exodus to cripple my church.
Yes, but choices must be made, even without any calls to divide. I know I’ll choose to leave my church soon should there not be any sense of a change coming, and I believe that may be true for a majority of our congregation. If there is no organized call for a split, there might not be any congregational vote, other than with our feet. But a choice not to do anything probably is a choice to end most progressive and moderate congregations altogether.
You’re right, John. People are already “voting with their feet” and unfortunately, I think that many of them are progressives who affirm full inclusion. The current situation is awful, but I remain at least a little hopeful that there are still leaders who might come up with solutions that aren’t as damaging to the local churches. I urge people to read the many “Why I’m Staying” articles written by those who affirm LGBTQ+ equality and not make hasty decisions.
David,
You have an interesting point. I think you are raising the question of where people will go if there is a split – and if there is only one Methodist church, will that church match their beliefs?
I don’t have an answer to that, but my bigger question is what will happen to those people if we don’t deal with this. From what I see, the churn is pretty painful. And, for that and other reasons, UMC churches in the United States (particularly rural) are closing at a sadly large rate.
Spending the energy, emotions and resources to keep fighting over these issues is taking us away from the good that we can and should do (however that is defined by those on the left or the right). And, beyond taking us away from our good work, it seems that it is also hurting those in the fight.
So, I am not disagreeing with you – there are costs in splitting I am just adding that there are costs in continuing to keep doing what we are doing. My fear is that the latter is greater than the former.
It is not something anyone ever seems to desire and is often tolerated out of fear of confrontation and considering the children excuse in divorce until the pain becomes too high for an amicable dissolution. Perhaps we are there now? One thing that permits me to hope despite the threat of schism is the fact Methodism was created through schism from the Anglican church, for much the same reason as today. There remains a class divide today; a slavery divide wasn’t enough; a struggle to admit women into ordained ministry failed as well. (Asburbury and Wesley didn’t discriminate re women), then it was increased segregation, and today the issue of color, women to a small degree and of course the topic at hand united in the US are tools applied for a division. Using our African brothers and sisters to support the goal to retain control will likely sever when no longer useful. It may sound bigotted as a statement but the behavior for centuries, especially in the US, has held fast to the Anglo Saxon perspective or roots creating the original schism.
Thank you, Dr. Allen
So well written! Thank you, Dr. Allen. I particularly appreciate the non-acrimonious nature of your analysis and conclusion. While I understand the desire behind the ‘resistance’ movement, it seems ultimately futile and fruitless. I would rather see our efforts spent figuring out how to go our separate ways rather than spent on causing further harm each to one other.
This article provides a compelling contrast of our differences. However, in his speech to the Upper New York Conference, Bishop Webb best stated the overall reason we are so at odds with each other: we have confused Christian unity with denominational unity. Christian unity is the love of all persons regardless of belief or religious affiliation. Denominational unity is about unity among a specific group of people with shared beliefs. I absolutely agree with his assessment that The United Methodist Church has been striving for the wrong type of unity and that is the reason we are all so frustrated and hurt. I truly believe we will have a better shot at Christian unity when we are each ensconced within our own denominations. That is when we will be able to fully embody the Wesleyan understanding of what it means to be a people who are truly of the catholic spirit able to believe and let believe.
https://peopleneedjesus.files.wordpress.com/2019/03/bishop-webbs-remarks-on-gc2019-to-the-upper-new-york-conference.pdf
https://peopleneedjesus.files.wordpress.com/2019/03/bishop-webbs-remarks-on-gc2019-to-the-upper-new-york-conference.pdf
Pretty convincing, but still hard to accept. This weekend is the 10th anniversary of my mother’s death, and I’m still negotiating the new normal, while just now recognizing how far I’ve come. Taking the siblings-after-death-of-a-parent analogy, I think a lot of us are still in the grieving stage, where we can’t yet begin to imagine the life ahead of us without the beloved parent. We can’t begin to talk about dividing up the property or moving on, until the grief cools off. But as long as the other sibling keeps hurting us in the midst of our grief, keeps telling us we are bad/sinful/disobedient, our grief won’t cool off, because some of our grief is really anger.
Margaret –
I am constantly amazed by how folks on one side or the other claim to be hurt by their wicked abusive counterparts when they are themselves also causing harm. Telling someone else that they are bad/sinful/disobedient is wrong. Telling them that they are only interested in (or in practical fact doing) harming others is exactly as wrong.
Scripture does in fact address this issue – and I address this advice to both sides – first, remove the log from your own eye…
I am sorry that you are hurt. I am also quite certain that your claiming that the other sibling is the one doing the harm is itself quite hurtful, so I am also sorry for the hurt you are causing. We NEED to step back and be the grownups in the room. Space cannot be found for healing by demanding that they others back down, change their minds, or compromise their own convictions. Sometimes we simply must grin and bear it. On both sides. For the sake of those whom we serve, and those whom we are called to serve going forward.
For the sake of the God we love, who surely doesn’t want us to be continuing to harm each other, let’s just stop doing that…
I don’t disagree with Wes’s conclusions in the least. The question, which I think Wes asks without asking, is, “Can we walk this path with charity of heart and generosity of spirit even when it hurts us personally?” I’m trying, but its’ hard. As one of those LGBTQAi+ clergy who has lived faithfully and served effectively for 30 years, I want to hit back. But I can’t, that is not the way of Christ. Dividing is easy; dividing without pain is impossible. If we are to divide, let it be as full of grace as possible.
The article is well-written, from a progressive point of view. I believe that conservatives would have a slightly different point of view.
I do wonder, however, how many of the progressive churches and conferences are actually asking their members what they want. I fail to believe that ALL of the members actually agree with the direction their church is going, and possibly not even a majority do. The churches in the US are losing members on a regular basis; does anyone think it might be related to the overly progressive agendas?
… or maybe a not-progressive-enough agenda?
There’s plenty of conservative views out there. Many of them believe that the reason for falling membership is the progressive lean. That doesn’t mean either view is correct – I don’t think anyone really has an answer to that (though I would suggest that it’s not a progressive or conservative thing, it’s a ‘American life has become very different’ thing).
As a simple man not raised in the church, I came to the Bible with no preconceived opinions. I learned to believe God has set certain rules for living the life He provided us. His Son reaffirmed those rules. Anything that detracts from God’s rules is unsatisfactory. To me, the choice was made a very long time ago.
This is a well thought out analysis. No doubt that there is more than the issue of homosexuality creating the division. Part of the problem is biblical interpretation as noted by the author; but I don’t think that is the total problem. There is some underlying political power struggle going on that I don’t understand. Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems like the WCA, Confessing Movement, Good News, etc want to have control of the church. Is that control just because of differences in biblical interpretation, purity, and vertical relationship with God and the individual, or something else?
Excellent article. My only quibble is that some of us who hold to a classical view of Christian truth and ethics (values, the content of the good life), are a long way from the hermeneutical position of fundamentalism, a literal reading, or even the Truth. Classic Christianity can hardly be literal hermeneutics, given its approach to God as Trinity. Classic Christianity was also way ahead of liberal Christianity in the acceptance of female preachers and its rejection of slavery. Many have worked through texts regarding divorce as well. My point is that classic Christianity is far from the type of hermeneutics the author suggests. The difficulty in sexuality is that marriage between a man and a woman comes from Jesus and seems affirmed in rest of NT. Heterosexuals do not meet the standard either.
But it doesn’t seem like Heterosexual Marriage is really a Core, fundamental value for Jesus, given that he said we must at times *hate* our heterosexual families, including our spouses in Luke 14:26. Jesus was accepting of Eunuchs, which were excluded in Deuteronomy 23:1. Leviticus has a LOT to do with separating clean from unclean and Jesus de emphasized this. What Leviticus states a particular sex act between males is based on how bodily emissions from men as well as women as enunciated in Leviticus 15 render a person unclean. That is why sex with a menstruating woman was forbidden in Leviticus 20:18.
Stop the arguing!!!
What is wrong with pointing out that while Heterosexual Marriage is not forbidden for Christians, that at the same time it is not the most important yardstick of what is right or wrong in sexuality? For instance, Biblically, whether or not a particular relationship led a person into idolatry was a more important consideration than whether it was in heterosexual marriage or not.
What translation of Bible do the progressives read. My translation is very clear about what are sins.
That shows that you may not understand original languages. Every Greek and Hebrew word used in the original Scriptures have MANY possible meanings. We have to judge what they mean in context. And translators often disagree on what these words mean in a particular context. What Paul said about homosexuality can mean many things. It could mean male cult prostitution, pederasty and sexually abusing slaves. It could be entirely symbolic and not literal. Paul DID speak allegorically at times, for instance when he spoke of Sarah and Hagar in Galatians 4:24, where he specifically stated he was allegorizing.
So, our teaching that homosexuality is wrong for the past 2,000 years is now outdated and passé? I don’t think so. This is the “What makes me feel good is OK” theology that is at the root of all evil.
Well, when you dig into it, yes.
There’s no parallel in modern homosexual relationships to the (extremely limited) scriptural references.
Genesis 19 (Sodom and Gomorrah)? Go see Ezekiel 16:49.
Leviticus? Women were property back then. Even marriages (not one man and one woman, by the way) were a man acquiring a subservient spouse. So a homosexual relationship between equals isn’t even in the same ballpark. But hey, if you want to put those laws down as unequivocal law that must be adhered to, then a) you need to start stoning homosexuals, b) you ought to check your fridge for pork or shellfish first, and c) really read through those laws – from tattoos to mixed fabrics etc etc ad nauseam, almost nobody in America follows those laws strictly.
Paul’s writings? Depending on your particular source, there are significant translational questions on all 3 passages.
But hey, we’re Christians, right? What did CHRIST say directly about homosexuality?
*crickets*
Yeah, exactly.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. … For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
I was at a rally with many LGBTQI+. They all believeth so they shall have eternal life. The passage does not say whoever believeth unless you are homosexual. Many of the people at the rally were also baptized into the UMC. I pray that one day all of the Bible will be used to affirm LGBTQI+ brothers and sisters in Christ instead of picking out passages to exclude them.
Where I disagree with this article is Allen’s apparent supposition that international delegates cannot possibly change their views about homosexuality. I have known MANY African American Gay Men. Not so many Lesbians. A majority of African Americans in this country now favor Gay marriage. I have also been contacted on Facebook by a lot of African LGBT activists from Africa. The Kenya Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of registration of Gay relationships. Africans weren’t born homophobic. It is rather that they have been taught to be so, first by British Colonial rule. which imposed so called “sodomy” laws, and second of all by white missionaries and Evangelical influence. I think we need much more intensive Progressive outreach to Africa as well as getting more African LGBT persons to be more out and open. We have to get Africans to realize how many of them as well as us whites are LGBT so that they won’t think being LGBT is a western import. There are many LGBT persons of every race and nationality. I even know some Filipino Gays. They need to see that it is rather that homophobia and transphobia are western imports. People ARE born LGBT, but no one is born homophobic or transphobic.
Strongly agree. Whether those persons would be elected as delegates is another question, but I agree with your approach.
Yet those changes won’t happen overnight, or even within the next few GCs.
But with that thought in mind, a split now doesn’t mean a later reconciliation cannot occur.
I was actually thinking of a time frame of at least 10 years and probably between 20 and 30 years.
When they become ” enlightened”, they can leave the Traditional UMC and join another denomination. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?
It is more like when they realize how many of their own people are LGBT and that homophobia, but not homosexuality is a western import. I just now received a Facebook message from an LGBT activist from Kenya.
Nuance…. Just split, stop arguing, and everything will sort itself out in the long run. Worrying does you no good.
What is the problem with me expressing my point of view? What is wrong about standing up for the oppressed and marginalized?
There is nothing at all wrong with you “standing up” for whatever you believe. I am merely suggesting is that you do whatever “standing up” you need to do in a non-aggressive way henceforth. That would be somewhere other than within the UMC; just as the author is suggesting.
I never said anything that was aggressive. I never personally attacked anyone here or engaged in name calling. Perhaps you think I should not argue with African countries which outlaw and prosecute people for being Gay? There are even some Conservatives who oppose criminalizing homosexuality. And these “sodomy laws” are a relic from when much of Africa was a colonial possession of white Great Britain. White Russia today is no better than much of Africa is towards Gays. Being against Gay persons is not genetic by race, it is cultural.
The reality is that we have already split. How do we make it official and move forward? A new “Central Conference” in the USA or a separate “Methodist Denomination” altogether?
“We are left with the worst sort of stalemate: the Traditional Plan is in effect in denominational law while in parts of the denomination the One Church Plan (or the Simple Plan) is being practiced in different congregations, conferences, and jurisdictions of the church in parts of the U.S. and Europe. All the while each side demonizes the other. Ecclesial disobedience will more and more become the new norm for the progressives, and the conservatives will cry foul with louder and louder voices. Meanwhile, congregations and conferences that are moderate and/or divided will lose members and likely become existentially distant from both the left and the right… We must split.”
A well reasoned article. I would commend a similarly well reasoned article from another perspective, written by retired UMC bishop Tim Whitaker. You can find it at – https://juicyecumenism.com/2019/03/20/bishop-timothy-whitaker/
It’s a rather long article, but well worth the read. It reaches the same conclusion as Allen’s article here, but from a different perspective. It seems to me that when two people provide a well reasoned analysis using different foundations and arrive at the same conclusion that it really is time to spend further energies on an amicable (or at least as amicable as is humanly possible) separation.
The Connectional Conference Plan was the true compromise plan, not the One Church Plan. The CCP would have begun needed structural changes and also allow both sides to be under the authority of people aligned with their views. That’s where the OCP failed.
What we have really seen in the aftermath of the GC2019 is that there are really no centrists/compatibilists. Some would say they were radicalized from what was seen and done at GC2019, but I disagree. Ultimately the centrists/compatibilists were more institutionalists than anything. Otherwise they would have supported the CCP rather than the OCP.
Unfortunately for GC2019, the CCP was deemed ‘too complicated’ to get any kind of support.
Yes, it was more complicated.
Yes, it would have required more changes to the BoD.
Yes, it would have required a lot of change across the next few years.
Yes, it looks almost like a slow-rolling schism.
But I think that a lot of people had blinders on – the OCP wasn’t going to be acceptable to large swaths of the denomination, just like the Traditionalist Plan isn’t acceptable to large swaths of the denomination.
The CCP should have received the backing and support (and communications and such) to be the headliner. Instead it was the least considered.
Thank you so much for providing a thoughtful article detailing why our UMC is broken. I am fairly new to the Methodist faith. Serving the second year of my first appointment as a part-time bi-vocational LLP. The heritiage and Weselyan theology is what drew me here. The people I serve with, clergy and laity are amazing disciples of Christ. There is so much I love about our church body and the work it does around the world. Yet I have been so despondent over the debate that divides our church body. I am definitly on the evangelical traditional side but affirm God loves all people and wishes them to be in relationship with him. I just believe the biblical teaching on homosexuality as sinful can not be tossed aside due to cultural demands.
May God continue to use and raise up wise leaders like yourself so that we can move into the future what ever that future is.
Amen. 2,000 years of scripture and 289 years of Wesleyanism need to remain as the foundation stones for the UMC. A split is humane.
Thank you Dr. Allen for your excellent, well reasoned article!! I appreciate your honesty and humble spirit as you tell it like it is. Just one comment: please be reminded that there are those who use the historical critical method of exegesis and have arrived at a traditional position concerning homosexuality. Examples: Robert A J. Gagnon’s The Bible and homosexual practice published by Abingdon and The moral vision of the New Testament by UM Richard Hays. Again, thank you for your article!!
I just found this article and it is interesting. Quick background. Grew up Methodist (more liberal home church), was agnostic by 10th grade. By the grace of Christ, I came home, but not to the Methodist Church. I now attend a non denominational evangelical church. I would be considered a conservative/traditionalist by most people.
I really liked the article and I think the Methodist church needs to divide as the author says , do it quickly and amicably or it will die. A large business that is about to go under, will sell off or close unprofitable locations and lines of business. Hoping to survive as a smaller organization. The UMC is in such a difficult state now and needs to act. No doubt a split would cause the end of many churches. However, the surviving ones would then have the freedom to grow whatever their tilt. If they don’t grow, and die, may they rest in peace.
Do it now. It may be too late.
It is not so typical of me to refer professionals online, but I feel like I owe a lot to Bill Hackwizard who helped me track my cheating husband when he was having an affair, I got to find out that he has been lying to me for the past 7 months and seeing two other women. I was able to get direct access to his text messages, phone conversations and all social networks on his phone. What was really amazing more was that my husband’s recently deleted messages were retrieved by the hacker. If you are getting less than you deserve in your relationship and want to be sure or if you have any hacking related issues just Contact him via this email: billhackwizard @ gmail dot com, text or speak with him on +1(314) 833-9209 and you also can send him a chat on Whatsapp messenger +1(314) 635-7319. Bill is the most reliable professional hacker around for now, for fast response tell him Jessica referred