United Methodism’s Insoluble Division

Recently United Methodist Bishop Scott Jones helpfully compiled a list of the various proposals aimed at solving our denomination’s more than 40 year debate over sexual ethics. What is striking is the implausibility of nearly all of them. First they are nearly all politically impossible, as almost none of them are likely to get the required votes at any foreseeable General Conference. Proposals entailing constitutional change, which requires a two thirds vote both at General Conference and among total votes at all global annual conferences, are especially unattainable. But secondly, almost all the proposals would fail to achieve the stated goal of preserving United Methodism’s institutional unity and ending or at least minimizing the chronic debate. Most of these proposals would exacerbate the debate AND ensure schism.

The search for a comprehensive magic formula for solving United Methodism’s divisions continues. It’s very American to assume that every problem, political, social, cultural, economic, ecclesial, has a defined solution, ideally through a single plan or legislative omnibus. This assumption has made Americans renowned as problem solvers. It also has made Americans often unrealistic and impatient. The assumption presumes that reason and logic can override history, emotions and passions. Human experience and the Christian revelation indicate otherwise.

Often the expectation of an omnibus solution to vast and deep problems only widens or relocates the problems. The Great Society of the 1960s loftily aimed to eliminate poverty. And it did raise living standards for many destitute. It also perpetuated poverty by displacing the family, churches and private charity. Poverty persists of course, now accompanied by unparalleled family breakdown.

More recently Obamacare was sweepingly intended as the comprehensive solution to spiraling health care costs and the chronically uninsured. It remains deeply controversial, is still under litigation, and almost nobody, even its supporters, believes it represents a final fix for American health care. Comprehensive Immigration Reform, which soaringly aspires to solve decades of illegal immigration issues, has now failed in Congress several times. Almost certainly controversies over Obamacare have politically contributed to strong doubts that CIR will comprehensively solve what it claims.

Traditional Christianity, because it is earthbound and skeptical about the limits of fallen humanity, should be suspicious of comprehensive legislative solutions to vast problems with decades of history behind them. Such issues, rooted for so long in human experience, can sometimes only be managed, not really solved. Sometimes such problems can be incrementally addressed, through trial and error. But ambitious solutions more typically worsen, not solve. What is true politically in society is often even truer for the church, in which opposing factions believe they serve God’s will.

Recently I completed writing a book on the Washington Peace Convention of 1861, which was the last major attempt to avoid the American Civil War. Some of the nation’s greatest statesmen were there, some of them dating back to the republic’s early years. They had crafted so many legislative compromises over slavery before that they hoped they could once again. But now the stakes were higher, and views were hardened. Their ultimate proposal, approved among themselves only just barely, would have enshrined slavery forever in the Constitution to dissuade the slave-owning South from secession. This proposal was morally appalling and politically untenable. Ascendant northern Republicans were opposed. Diehard pro-slavery southerners were no longer interested in the Union. The compromise went nowhere. For many, a peaceful separation of the country was the alternative solution. But the nation was too interwoven for amicable division. Civil War was unavoidable. There was no viable peaceful alternative.

Fortunately, we can safely assume there will never be violence within United Methodism! But we do have an unavoidable ecclesial civil war for which there is no truly palatable or attainable legislative solution. We will have to endure it. It is painful for many, but this struggle, like all human conflict, will ameliorate with the passage of time. It likely will have an organic, gradual conclusion, not a dramatic legislative final act.

Historically, church struggles have not been solved with a decisive vote or two within a generation. The early church councils responded to controversies by defining orthodoxy. But typically the debate continued for decades, even centuries, after the councils’ declarations and creeds. The orthodox who affirmed the creeds could not rest when the councils adjourned. Instead, they often had to expend lifetimes in defense of the creeds. Think of Athanasius long after Nicaea.

Americans don’t like to recall this history. We want solutions now. We’re tired. We’ve already waited too long. Even if we can wait, we think others can’t. If this crisis is not resolved once and for all NOW, it’ll be TOO LATE! This debate is a distraction! Let’s put it behind us and move on!

In contrast, Christianity is a call to patience and to acceptance that our fallen world, which includes the institutional church, cannot be purified by human exertions. Some problems, perhaps most problems, can be managed, or lived with, but not really solved. Conflict and debate are, in this world, the norm, not an aberration. And often Providence redeems that conflict with a solution beyond our own imagination.