Since the small Western Jurisdiction of United Methodism elected an openly lesbian bishop in defiance of church law, there’s been renewed conversation about schism. Some predict it with regret while some hope it would end decades of controversy between conservatives and liberals. Typically schism talk does not focus on the likely impact of a denominational division on the local church.
That impact almost certainly would not be pretty.
United Methodism’s over 40 year debate on Christian sexual teaching has afflicted every General Conference (meeting every four years), some local annual conference meetings, some church agency board meetings, seminaries, and in recent years is a favorite topic for Internet discourse. Typically it is not openly addressed in local churches.
Most United Methodists likely are largely unaware there’s a denominational debate on sex. Most pastors do not discuss it lest there be unwanted controversy. If there ever is a formal schism, many church members will be very surprised and not pleased about the need for choosing sides in their local church.
Local church controversies almost never end happily. No major local church controversy, once begun, will neatly follow an expected course. There are always surprises, usually unpleasant. People you’ve known for years will not behave as you expect, and will not conform to the beliefs long ascribed to them. In a debate over sex, some presumed conservatives will turn out to be something other, and the same for presumed liberals. Some will adopt a position at odds with their beliefs for a myriad of complex reasons, most of them not theological or spiritual.
A local church debate may begin over one presenting issue but quickly expand into a wider conflict involving countless other long simmering disputes unrelated to the main topic. A vote over sex may ultimately for some congregations actually become a poll of the pastor’s popularity, or a plebescite on the pastor’s spouse, or a referendum on the last building program, fundraising campaign, new organ purchase, choir director hire, or new carpet color for the sanctuary.
To the extent the presenting issue is actually addressed, there in many cases, probably most cases, will not be careful theological conversation about church teaching on marriage and sex, for which very few United Methodists have been catechized. Instead, it will be a vote for a “pro-gay” or “anti-gay” church. The debate will mostly rely on American political categories, not Christian ways of thinking.
In most local church controversies, nobody ends up really happy, not even the “winners.” In every serious congregationsl controversy, some members end up leaving the church, including some “winners,” who remain upset over the resulting ill will. Such controversies often require years of congregational recovery. Sometimes there is no recovery, as the stench of the controversy lingers indefinitely.
A debate in over 30,000 local United Methodist congregations about sex will be the mother of all ecclesial battles, exceeding in rancor and venom all previous controversies.
I’ve spent nearly all my half century of life in United Methodism, 30 years involved in issues beyond the local church, involving interaction with thousands of individual United Methodists and some direct knowledge of hundreds of congregations. I know of only a handful that are so uniformly liberal or conservative that a debate over sex would not seriously divide and disrupt those congregations, in many cases irreparably.
Some United Methodists have over the years told me their congregation is “ready” for a split. Or sometimes they acknowledge their own church isn’t ready but cite some mythical large church that is ready and will lead the way. Count me skeptical. Nobody is really ready.
In our current American culture there is widespread distaste for, distrust of, and impatience with longstanding institutions. Smash it, blow it up, it can’t get worse, some commonly say, confident that whatever replaces the destroyed institution must be better. But nearly all human experience recalls that institutions constructed across generations, once smashed, in fact are not easily replaced by an improvement. Instead, their demise is often followed by a vacuum, or confusion.
That a formal United Methodist schism, forcing thousands of local congregations effectively to choose sides, would be chaotic and destructive does not of course mean it won’t happen. And maybe, from the perspective of purity, such division must happen, before there can be renewal and new life, some firmly believe.
But whatever happens, United Methodist schism should not be romanticized as the gracious alternative to further church debate. There would be very little gracious about it, especially for local churches.
Comment by Jeff Gill on July 26, 2016 at 9:00 am
Watching over the last decade and more of how outright schism as worked out for The Episcopal Church, I think Mark’s discussion here is exactly on point. Schism is not going to play out the way those pushing for it think, whether the wish is from the “left” or the “right,” the permissive or the restrictive. If you’d told me where the state of play for TEC would be in 2016 back twelve years ago as the open splits and legal/polity maneuvering began, I would have had trouble even understanding what you’d be telling me from the perspective of today.
The point about general American distrust of institutions is even more trenchant in the current electoral environment, and I most appreciate the remark “The debate will mostly rely on American political categories, not Christian ways of thinking.” Those categories really don’t translate into the wider life of Christian church bodies, I believe, and the fit is even worse when you look at it from the perspective of local church life. Thank you for this essay.
Comment by Philip on July 26, 2016 at 9:25 am
You are absolutely correct. The churches that I have attended avoid controversy, don’t advertise/discuss the GC, and are willfully ignorant of the actions of the various boards. Many didn’t wake up until Nancy Pelosi’s speech when Obamacare passed which lead to pulling strings that exposed how far the church had veered left.
Unfortunately, many read the ignorance of the workings of the church as support or indifference. It will be a surprise to many that at most churches, when the debate of the GC reaches the pews and Sunday School rooms, it will be ugly. One needs only to look at some PC(USA) congregations to foresee this future. I pray it doesn’t happen.
Comment by David F. Miller on July 26, 2016 at 9:38 am
As a long time member of the UMC I have wanted to avoid schism; but I also believe it is important to remain true to the Bible and the teachings of the historic church. What the progressives are doing this year is lawlessness. They are willing to break the church to have their way. In the local church I attend we have deliberately avoided the whole controversy. Our Pastors have never once discussed the problem. At the same time our conference (New York Annual Conference) has ordained gay clergy and annouced that the general conference does not speak for them. This puts the local church in a difficult place. Members fear retribution if we take a stand counter to the NYAC and most simply do not know of the conflict. It is time for people to speak the truth, to defend the teachings of the Church and the Bible. The issue is not simply sexuality but on the inspiration of the Bible. Many progresssives think it a book written by humans with their biases included not the word of God. This belief allows for a great deal of mischief. As a lay member I have waited for clergy to speak in defense of Scripture but have heard little. I am disappointed and frustrated.
Comment by Steve on July 26, 2016 at 9:55 am
Well said. The part about the people in the pews being unaware of this can not be overstated.
Comment by Adam Puma Borsay on July 26, 2016 at 10:55 am
What will likely happen, is that Biblically orthodox Methodists will grow tired of the fighting and make an exit to more conservative local churches(our EPC church has been absorbing those folks for a few years now) leaving the voting power to the far left theologians who will then “win” forcing even more conservatives out.
Comment by nationaljester on August 1, 2016 at 12:04 pm
The PCUSA has been shrinking by +/-5% a year for years, now down to about 1.5 million, and projected to hit 1 million in 5-7 years. With few young families or adult Baptisms, demographics work against fossilized/dead denominations. UMC will face the same fate without a schism or reformation.
Comment by Skipper on July 26, 2016 at 12:31 pm
In the past I have supported a break so we could have unity on major issues, like the authority of the bible and morality. Today, Bible-based Methodists are increasing all the time. It seems it’s just a matter of time until accountability is restored, so no longer a desperate need for schism. Also, a split would create a group that approves of a life of debauchery. There is nothing Methodist about that and we surely don’t need that to happen! We need to stand fast and continue to disapprove of proposals to compromise God’s Word while working to restore His principles.
Comment by Recovering Liberal on July 26, 2016 at 4:32 pm
David Miller made a good point when he said, “Many progressives think it (the Bible) a book written by humans with their biases included not the word of God. This belief allows for a great deal of mischief.”
While we might not be surprised that a progressive leader would choose Shakespear or the Beatles as being as relevant as the holiness code; good, solid bible teaching is not something I have experienced much from the pulpit even from pastors who are less progressive. As a life-long UM, it seems that we have moved from “God Loves sinners” to “God loves sin” / “there is no sin to offend God”. Sermons are either focused on pastoral care or how to reach out and grow the congregation. Pastors have bible studies where they provide little bible-focused leadership and more often ask everyone’s opinion and leave us with the same humanistic rationalism that secular society accepts – all truth is equal (which is nonsensical to a Bible-based Christian).
I agree that the people in the pews don’t know much about the split issues; but as I have brought up the issue of using the bible as a way of coming to know what God intends for us to be and do, I also find most all to be pretty biblically ignorant and secularly influenced. “Unity” at all costs and with all people is the message that they have been taught. This is a perversion of new testament unity and ignores the biblical world view that the world is a fallen, sinful place with fallen sinful people who are wanting to get what they think they want. So, we have all this “mischief”.
Our growth-based practices and preaching and the lack of thorough, consistent bible-oriented teach leaves many churches looking like a secular organization with nothing unique to offer seekers.
Recovering Liberal
Comment by Joan Watson on July 26, 2016 at 12:33 pm
I would prefer spiritual renewal to schism. But there is also the very real possibility that this could come unwound from the bottom. The local church I am currently loosely associated with has acknowledged the issue but is ignoring it. My own association with the local church is minimal at the moment because of some abrupt changes that occurred 15 years ago when part of the church decided it was time to follow a pastor down a rabbit trail in pursuit of relevancy; the atmosphere surrounding the change was “be there or be square”. The upshot is it is not the church it once was; it is a completely different church than the one I joined. All the energy and fellowship are gone. Unity and a pursuit of excellence were traded for diversity and relevance and it is not working. In the aftermath of what I call the “do this and they will come era”, worship attendance dropped from 475 to barely breaking 300; Sunday School attendance is down by about the same amount. I am not quite comfortable with the current pastor–some days I would bet he was more conservative, others more progressive. The past two Sundays he has been more progressive; my training in worship etiquette prevented me from walking out of worship. My feeling is this conference has a progressive majority but not by a substantial margin. Because of our friendship with a former pastor and his wife, I happen to know that there is a lot of discontent among conservative/orthodox pastors in this conference–they are tired of the in-fighting; my friend was so hoping things would be settled one way or the other at General Conference. Leaving the denomination with or without their church has been on the table for these pastors for several years. If churches left it would create chaos for the conference because it would include the four largest churches in the conference–and they are truly large. When our friend’s son decided to enter the ministry, his father counseled him to start the process in another district because our friend was fairly certain the district in which he serves would blackball his son. When the Supreme Court handed down its ruling regarding same gender marriages, the Bishop said this is what we believe but here are the ways a UMC pastor can participate in a same gender “marriage” without incurring charges. Where’s the integrity in that type of statement? People in the mixed environment–especially conservative/orthodox clergy and their wives–are tired of the mess!
Comment by Mike on July 27, 2016 at 11:47 am
I left the UMC years ago because I find that the pastors/leaders that I knew spiritualized the Bible, especially the miracles. If the Resurrection of Jesus, for example, were not historical, then I wanted nothing to do with Christianity. Why? Because the Apostles were witnesses to the Resurrection and spent time with the risen Christ, and proclaimed the Resurrection of Christ as both true and historical. To put it another way, if the Resurrection were a lie, then I wanted nothing to do with Christianity. Instead, Aesop’s fables would be better for moral instruction because at least the stories were presented as fables.
I recently engaged with a UMC minister who is close to this new lesbian bishop. I shared my concerns about “disbelief/unbelief/rebellion” amongst UMC leadership. His response was consistent with the ministers of years ago — but more openly hostile to the belief in a trustworthy and authoritative Scripture.
If the foundation is bad, the whole building is compromised. God holds UMC leadership accountable for disbelief, for keeping their people in ignorance and in leading many away from the only Savior of the world.
God is not surprised at the recent happenings in the UMC. He is Sovereign, Holy and Good. And God will bring glory to His Name.
If the UMC members (including its leaders) do not repent of their disbelief and rebellion against God, then this once large denomination should rightly be downsized. I found a faithful church home in the PCA (a conservative breakoff from the disbelieving PCUSA). If you’re a United Methodist who has had enough, you too might consider visiting a PCA church (an imperfect church, but a faithful church in many ways). Faithful preaching and teaching of the Scriptures are food for the soul — and are what I was deprived of during my years in the UMC.
Comment by Namyriah on July 27, 2016 at 12:14 pm
Congratulations on making the move from UM to PCA. I made that same move many years ago, after working for 4 yrs for the UM Board of Discipleship in Nashville, where I saw liberal church bureaucrats up close and ugly. As I’m sure you’ve noticed, once a church gets rid of the belief in individual salvation, it has to find some justification for even existing, so it convinces itself that liberal politics is a useful substitute for salvation. I can’t see into people’s souls, but my impression of the staff members at BOD, most of whom were ordained clergy, is that they were agnostics or atheists – or, at best, deists. If they believed in God, it certainly was not the God of the Bible. If they saw that the political causes they were backing were making headway, they would claim that “God” was at work. The Jesus they worshipped was essentially a mirror image of themselves.
Comment by RonT on July 30, 2016 at 10:37 pm
I tried the PCUSA and the PCA, both have a hard pill to swallow: Calvinism. I find it difficult to resolve the fact that God decided before anyone was born, those that would be saved and those who not be able to be saved. In other words, God saved the Elect, but decided to leave the others to suffer in Hell for eternity with out any ability to be saved.
Comment by John S. on August 1, 2016 at 7:26 am
“…an imperfect church…” aren’t they all?
Comment by Tony Seel on July 28, 2016 at 8:03 am
Good piece, Mark. Having gone through the schism in the Episcopal Church, I believe you’re spot on.
Comment by Bob Brooke on July 29, 2016 at 9:27 pm
I suppose that this article’s thesis is true: Most local churches do not talk about the human sexuality and marriage debate at all, much less from theological perspectives and are totally unprepared for the carnage that will happen as a result of the coming schism. When the split is “official,” churches will have to choose to stay or go. There will be no “winners.” All will lose to some degree or another. Perhaps the best path is to encourage individuals to educate themselves on the core issues, so that they will be more ready to leave or stay. A very difficult situation at best.
Comment by Janju on July 29, 2016 at 11:47 pm
As a 20+ years member if the UMC this subject is very much in my mind as well on the lips of the others in my small congregation, but never approached in the pulpit. The last 2 pastors, knowing ours is a conservative group, kept their sermons rather innocuous, love, unity, etc. Gradually the liberal buzz words are slipping in and noticed by many. We are gradually shinking in numbers as those who believe in the inerrant word of God finally give up and no longer want to support a denomination that doesn’t practice what is written in the Bible and the Book of Discipline. Knowing the tithes and offerings help support many liberal agencies within the church makes me hesitate every time I write my weekly check. I love the UMC and highly resent what has happened, but this didn’t begin with the LGBT rising. It began when the UMC seminaries stopped teaching the Bible as it is written.
Comment by RonT on July 30, 2016 at 10:11 pm
It seems to me, whenever an organization falters or fails it can be traced back to the leaders of that organization. It also seems to me that there are too many non-Methodists in the UMC leadership.
Will you be loyal to The United Methodist Church accepting its order, liturgy, doctrine, and discipline, committing yourself to be accountable with those serving with you, and to the bishop and those who are appointed to supervise your ministry?
ANS.: I will, God being my helper.
When the church leaders openly ignore and defy the above pledge they took and there is no one to require adherence, the church will loose direction and spin out of control.
If the leaders will not honor their pledge or decide that the church is not for them and leave, the congregations will leave. Considering the declining congregation populations, the answer is clear.
I believe that it is better for the UMC to collapse because it was faithful to its doctrine, and discipline than because it diluted and ignored the standards it was formed on.
Comment by Jack Vogt on July 31, 2016 at 7:42 am
Mark, as usual, you are right on target with this discussion of the inevitable split in the UMC. As a Methodist for more than 70 years, it have known it was coming for at least the past 10-15 years. One aspect of the horrors of the split not discussed in your piece is “What happens to the local Church assets (buildings, facilities, parsonages, etc) when the split happens?” Since the local church only holds title to the assets in trust for the denomination (even though the local church raised the funds and built all of the assets), recent court cases have set a precedent that allows the denomination to seize all assets of a local church in the event (for whatever reason), the church ceases to be affiliated with the denomination. Which side of the split (liberal or conservative) denomination would end up the owner of all assets? In larger churches, this can easily represent several millions of dollars of hard work and investment by the local church. Which side wins?
Comment by John S. on August 1, 2016 at 7:28 am
If you pile on enough debt the UMC will usually pass on taking the property that goes with it.
Comment by Jerry on July 31, 2016 at 10:42 pm
The option of the UMC remaining as one church is just as ugly or perhaps uglier than a schism. With the ordination of a lesbian bishop more people in the UMC will leave for other Bible believing places of worship. The larger society is already viewing the UMC the same way it does the Episcopal, PCUSA, Lutheran, etc denominations that have abandoned the Scriptures. If we do not split, whether amicably or acrimoniously, the fight will continue for the next 20 years. All the while, the UMC in the US will continue to bleed. The bleeding is getting worse and will get worse still as more provocative acts mount up.
Comment by John S. on August 1, 2016 at 7:22 am
That impact almost certainly would not be pretty.
Was there ever a schism that was?
Comment by nationaljester on August 1, 2016 at 11:56 am
Based on my +30 years experience in the PCUSA, I’d suggest that it is impossible to avoid an eventual schism in the UMC. It is really a question of how equitable the terms of divorce will be for each side. We didn’t split until the ‘Liberals’, for lack of a better term, had control of the institution. Rather than allow a fair and peaceful process of discernment, dissenting congregations and clergy have paid a huge price to leave what I view as a sinking ship. While I dislike the violence the PCUSA has inflicted on their opponents, there is an upside. I see renewal and reformation coming out of the schisms in mainline denominations as people, “choose this day whom to serve”.
Comment by Rev, Vaughan Hayden on August 1, 2016 at 2:39 pm
What made “Methodism,” Methodism was Charles and John Wesley’s accountability to Scripture and each other. Charles in particular saw the culture and the church spinning out of control and decided to live and practice Biblical Christianity, not cultural relativism. All this while attending college no less! I wonder what these Biblical purists, who believed in being people of one book would think about our silly debate and how we have lost focus on living the Scriptures, instead trying to find room in them for our own personal vices. I think if they were in a church facing those issues, they would call the whole thing off and start something new. After all, they tried the renewal approach for years and the Anglican church stayed the Anglican church. At least they got their new thing off the ground to spread Scriptural holiness across the land. If only we would have watered it, once it got planted, instead of watering it down.
Comment by GW on August 2, 2016 at 12:06 pm
The UMC turned its back on the scriptures when it ordained women to be pastors and bishops, ignoring the clear teaching of the scriptures. The pastor is responsible for seeing to it that their sheep are taught the full counsel of the Word of God. Right off the bat, the female “pastor” has a problem teaching that the Bible is the Word of God because the only way she can be a pastor is to discard some of the scriptures. If we can just pick and choose the scriptures we like, why can’t we get rid of every hard teaching of scripture? (Don’t worry young people – marriage is not required for sex!; Don’t worry doctors – God does not consider a baby in the womb to be a human life!; Don’t worry America – God does not hate divorce).
The UMC has no reason to divide over any LGB issue, because the real issue the scripture and that bridge was burned long ago for Methodist.
Comment by okiefrom on August 3, 2016 at 11:16 am
GW, I suppose you are aware that Paul teaches out of both sides of his mouth about women in ministry. You apparently have listened only to the part where he doesn’t favor it. Look at the big picture, dude.
Comment by Robert Glass on August 19, 2016 at 11:42 am
The Satanic Bible is a perfect fit for many within the church who support homosexuality, science, love, abortion, and it is spot on with women’s rights, justice, and so on.
Instead of standing up and admitting who they are… they work internally to confuse and distort the truth and with the ultimate goal of destroying the faith.
Comment by wacourson on March 27, 2017 at 8:15 pm
Bill Courson
Yesterday at 11:55am ·
John Wesley had much to say on differences of opinion amongst Christians: important thoughts for a time – now – when several major Christian denominations (the United Methodist Church, inter alia) are threated with schism on account of issues such as women’s ordination, LGBT roles in the Church, same-sex marriage, reproductive rights, etc.
As a “new Methodist” (having at the ripe age of 64 just discovered Wesley’s writings and not yet having affiliated myself officially to any Methodist body) I may be speaking out of turn, but indulge me for a moment. Why has it occurred to no one to simply amend the Book of Discipline so as to make the selection of ordinands the business of local Conferences rather than the subject of churchwide debate? Does the ordination of LGBT clergy and of the solemnization of same-sex marriages rise to the same level of gravity as, say, the doctrine of the Resurrection, the character of the Gospel and of the sacraments, the operation of Grace? It seems to me that it does not. (Note that I write this as an openly and proudly gay man). Does this beautiful tradition that calls itself Methodism really want to forsake it’s birthright only to descend into pharisaic legalism?
Wesley writes:
““Though we cannot think alike, may we not love alike? May we not be of one heart, though we are not of one opinion? Without all doubt, we may. Herein all the children of God may unite, notwithstanding these smaller differences.”
“But some may say, I have mistaken the way myself, although I take it upon myself to teach others. It is probable many will think this, and it is very possible that I have. But I trust, whereinsoever I have mistaken, my mind is open to conviction. I sincerely desire to be better informed. I say to God and man, “What I know not, teach thou me!”
Are you persuaded that you see more clearly than me? It is not unlikely that you may. Then treat me as you would desire to be treated yourself upon a change of circumstances. Point out to me a better way than I have yet known. Show me it is so, by plain proof of Scripture. And if I linger in the path I have accustomed to tread, and am therefore unwilling to leave it, labour with me a little; take me by the hand, and lead me as I am able to bear. But be not displeased if I entreat you not to beat me down in order to quicken my pace: I can go but feebly and slowly at best; then, I should not be able to go at all. May I not request of you, further, not to give me hard names in order to bring me into the right way. Suppose I were ever so much in the wrong, I doubt this would not set me right. Rather, it would make me run so much the farther from you, and so get more and more out of the way
Nay, perhaps, if you are angry, so shall I be too; and then there will be small hopes of finding the truth. If once anger arises, [aute kapnos], (as Homer somewhere expresses it,) this smoke will so dim the eyes of my soul, that I shall be able to see nothing clearly. For God’s sake, if it be possible to avoid it, let us not provoke one another to wrath. Let us not kindle in each other this fire of hell; much less blow it up into a flame. If we could discern truth by that dreadful light, would it not be a loss rather than gain?
For, how far is love, even with many wrong opinions, to be preferred before truth itself without love! We may die without the knowledge of many truths, and yet be carried into Abraham’s bosom. But if we die without love, what will knowledge avail? Just as much as it avails the devil and his angels!
The God of love forbid that we should ever make the trial. May he prepare us for the knowledge of all truth, by filling our hearts with all his love, and with all joy and peace in believing!”
Do not these words of John Wesley point directly to an answer for the UMC in its time of trouble?
Comment by Mike Lipenkranz on March 28, 2018 at 1:16 pm
Why is everything “pro-gay” or “anti-gay”? (Notice where the focus is?) How about pro-Bible or anti-Bible? Or pro-God or anti-God?
The Bible is very clear on the issue of homosexuality and marriage, therefore GOD is very clear. If it is not clear to you, then there is deliberate and willful ignorance! You either believe God meant what He said or not! You either believe God created them male and female, and for a purpose, or you don’t!
That doesn’t mean sinners can’t be part of the church, or none of us would be there. But you still have to acknowledge sinful behaviors, and REPENT. I left the Methodist church years ago for one simple reason: they watered down the scripture to tickle people’s ears.
2 Tim 4:3 “For a time is coming when people will no longer listen to sound and wholesome teaching. They will follow their own desires and will look for teachers who will tell them whatever their itching ears want to hear.”
That is exactly where the Methodist church is today. Maybe not all of them, but most of them.