When I moved to Denver in 1984, Rocky Mountain News (RIP) my work plunged me into the ongoing United Methodist Church battles over creed-level doctrines, the Bible and, of course, homosexuality.
The region’s defining institution was the Iliff School of Theology, a UMC authorized seminary that a former professor there once told me was “the single most liberal school in America that still bothers to call itself ‘Christian.’ “ In the late ‘80s, an Iliff student said he had encountered one professor who believed that the resurrection of Jesus actually happened, as an event in real time. I would doubt this seminary has become more small-o “orthodox” in the past third of a century.
If you were in Denver back then it was clear that the United Methodists were in the midst of a very slow train wreck and that a parting of the ways was inevitable. The question: Who would leave and who would control the assets of this large, but shrinking, denomination?
This brings us to a recent story in The Nashville Tennessean with this dramatic double-decker headline (behind a fierce paywall):
Methodists focus on Easter amid denominational schism and the tough decisions ahead
A new, more conservative Methodist denomination is set to launch May 1 after a years-long debate centered largely over LGBTQ rights.
People have been using the word “schism” for decades, when describing this conflict. I would like to argue that this technical term is problematic, in this case, and that recent events — especially the proposed “Reconciliation and Grace Through Separation” protocol — have made it even more so. I propose using the word “divorce,” in this case. Hold that thought.
There is much to praise in this Tennessean story, especially the many quotes from regional church leaders on both sides of this battle. However, the “schism” lens is easy to see. I think that with two or three extra sentences, readers would have a better idea what is going on in this conflict. It’s also important to know that the Southeast is a crucial region in this conflict (along with the core Midwest), in which there are many doctrinally conservative churches paired with bishops who are more progressive.
But let’s start with the term “schism.” Here is a helpful Britannica reference:
schism, in Christianity, a break in the unity of the church.
In the early church, “schism” was used to describe those groups that broke with the church and established rival churches. The term originally referred to those divisions that were caused by disagreement over something other than basic doctrine. Thus, the schismatic group was not necessarily heretical. Eventually, however, the distinctions between schism and heresy gradually became less clear, and disruptions in the church caused by disagreements over doctrine as well as disruptions caused by other disagreements were eventually all referred to as schismatic.
As I said, it has been clear for decades that doctrinal differences are at the heart of the wars in this increasingly global denomination.
Long ago, two famous Duke University academics — the late sociologist Robert Wilson and the popular author William Willimon, now a retired bishop — produced an influential report about UMC life in the 1970s. The title, "The Seven Churches of Methodism,” noted fault lines in doctrine, growth patterns and leadership patterns here in the United States that were already obvious.
Battles over doctrine might justify use of the “schism” label. But here is the question: Which army in this denominational war is trying to change official doctrines?
The Tennessean story notes that an increasing number of churches are already voting on whether to leave the denomination. In the Bible Belt, these churches are on the doctrinal right, but some liberal congregations in other regions are moving toward the exit door. This story starts at at church in rural south central Tennessee, with a vote on “leaving the United Methodist Church, a decision playing out across the world as part of a years-long debate within the denomination largely over LGBTQ rights.”
The word “largely” is crucial. For the doctrinal left, the fight is about LGBTQ inclusion. For those on the right, this issue — and many others — are linked to 2,000 years of church teachings and the authority of the Bible.
Moving on. The story notes:
Many other United Methodist churches will be making similar decisions as the reality of the denomination’s schism takes new life when a splinter Methodist denomination officially launches May 1. …
The Wesleyan Covenant Association is an advocacy group that is helping establish the new denomination, the Global Methodist Church. The Methodist camp holds more traditional views on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Many expected the Global Methodist Church to launch later this year after delegates at the UMC General Conference voted on a plan to split. But officials decided last month to postpone the General Conference until 2024, prompting the Global Methodist Church to preemptively launch.
Note that it appears, with this language, that the Global Methodist Church wants to make UMC teachings more conservative. Thus, this group is pushing the denomination toward schism.
But the UMC wars are way more complicated than that. Please allow me to make a few observations:
* There are actually three groups, at the very least, on the marriage and sex issues in this fight.
(1) Leaders of the Global Methodist Church want to KEEP the current doctrines of the church, as stated in the Book of Discipline. They do want to make it easier to enforce the ordination vows that UMC ministers take in which they promise to follow church doctrines.
(2) The American church establishment wants to find a way to make church teachings on marriage and sex optional, thus attempting to keep the church united in structure, if not in doctrine. Doctrines would change for many, but not for all, or something like that.
(3) Leaders on the candid UMC left don’t want to compromise and insist on a clear, unequivocal break with old doctrines, making it ultra-clear that orthodoxy has been redefined. Here is the homepage for the Liberation Methodist Connexion.
* It’s crucial to know that UMC conservatives have, for decades, been winning the big votes to defend church teachings. Why? This is a global church and Methodism in Africa and Asia has been growing, while churches in North America have been shrinking. Thus, the small-o orthodox have more votes in global meetings and all the global trends are in their favor, if their coalition holds together in the very racially diverse Global Methodist Church.
* Why are conservatives leaving and surrendering the vast majority of the UMC’s institutions and resources, if they are winning the global votes? The establishment and the academic left holds all of the high ground in the United States — especially seminaries and church agencies. Doctrinal conservatives, however, have the stronger global ties and, in key regions, most of the growing local congregations. This is a perfect formula for painful conflict in the USA.
A big question: Is it possible to cause a “schism” by defending the church’s existing teachings? If the racially diverse global majority leaves the largely white USA side of the church, then which part of this equation is schismatic?
There is one more fact to know, when considering this issue of journalism language and style.
The Reconciliation and Grace Through Separation protocol was negotiated by a coalition of UMC leaders on the left AND the right. The goal was to admit the obvious, after decades of pain, without wasting millions and millions of dollars on legal battles at the local, regional, national and global levels.
In other words, some courageous people on both sides are attempting to negotiate a (wait for it) DIVORCE.
The bottom line: I think that this divorce language is more fair-minded to Methodists on BOTH SIDES, especially those who stepped forward to attempt to end the standoff.
Questions?