methodist split

Abraham: Methodist Split on Identity Politics and Salvation

Carolina Lumetta on September 22, 2020

A leading United Methodist theologian told Evangelical Virginia Methodists that the denomination, as it likely splits next year, will choose between “a version of Christianity where the primary focus of missions will be on so-called social justice and to identity politics versus a church where the focus will be on the salvation of souls.”

Dr. William “Billy” Abraham is retiring from United Methodist Perkins School of Theology at Southern Methodist University and is starting the Wesley House of Studies program at the George W. Truett Theological Seminary at Baylor University.

Abraham titled his address “In the Departure Lounge: Choose This Day Whom You Shall Serve.” His thesis included an analysis of the key differences between both sides of the coming UMC split following implementation of the Protocol of Reconciliation & Grace Through Separation (commonly referred to as the Feinberg Protocols).

The Protocol outlines the reasons for the denominational split, primary of which is the debate surrounding the participation of individuals in the church who identify as LGBTQ. Abraham then used five key disjunctions between the continuing side and the reformed side to argue for adoption of the latter as the UMC navigates these divisions.

Although he openly stated that his specialty is focused on the retrieval and articulation of faith, Abraham stated that issues involving sexual morality and pluralism are too important to ignore. These disjunctions contrasted the values of the Wesleyan tradition, the use of rhetoric and persuasion, a unified structure of teachings and practices in the UMC, and the approach to missions and evangelism.

“I’m not convinced that the continuing UMC will be Christian in this sense,” Abraham claimed, “because they have neither the will nor the underlying theological rationale to engage in effective forms of evangelism.”

Abraham sees the continuing UMC tradition veering too far from disciple-making by being controlled by identity politics, unreasonable persuasion methods, and an overemphasis on social justice. In contrast to this “ill thought-out and suffocating” environment, he said that new Methodism will be in a better position to continue engaging in relief work, charitable efforts, racial issues, and issues of injustice in a more strategically wise and doctrinally strong manner.

Abraham cited concerns regarding the question of whether pluralism within the UMC would be more beneficial than a denominational separation. He explained Wesley’s standards and why Methodism must be united under them, and this interpretation has a clear and firm view on sexual morality and marriage.

Additionally, Abraham said that pluralism is a weak, “stop-gap arrangement,” that would be unsustainable and lead to a faction overtaking the entire denomination. This necessitates a decision from a denominational level and then also from an individual level. Churches must choose for themselves whether to remain within the traditional UMC with evolving doctrines regarding sexuality or whether to separate into a new Methodist tradition which aligns more closely to Wesleyan doctrine.

Using the historical precedent of Wesley and the Age of Reason, Abraham pointed out that Methodism has been founded on critical thought and civil dialogue, traits which he sees absent in continuing UMC contingent. While the culture of Wesley’s day was more aligned with the Scriptures, thus paving his way to some degree, the Methodist church now faces opposition from within itself and the culture at large.

Issues of sex, morality, and marriage are merely the entry point to the larger issue of the survival of Christian faith in the West, according to Abraham.

“Christianity is on the line in the West. I used to think that was just true of Europe, but I was naïve about the situation in the United States. The divisions taking place are over what we consider to be a robust version of Christianity versus an updated and revisionist account of Scripture.”

In his concluding remarks, Abraham called for a choice: “The choice is clear: will we remain in continuity with Wesley’s Methodism? Do we want to have crosses in our churches or rainbow crosses?”

He said that despite the controversies and pains surrounding the conversation of separation, he is optimistic that the new Methodism will survive the adjustment and move on to continue in the tradition of Wesley more effectively after the Protocols have been implemented.

  1. Comment by William on September 22, 2020 at 5:07 pm

    Two distinct denominations are, indeed, emerging out of the current UMC. The Post Separation UMC will rapidly track left beginning with its first General Conference after sufficient numbers of traditionalists depart. The “new” traditional denomination, actually a continuation of the original Methodist Church, will emerge. The major challenge for the “new” denomination will be the education of the masses of the distinct differences of the two emerging denominations, with strong opposition from the progressive element within the current UMC, prior to affiliation voting.

  2. Comment by Sally 23 on September 23, 2020 at 10:10 am

    When there was a schism in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Seminary in the 70s, the seminary professors not following church discipline were obliged to leave the LCMS and leave their seminary for their apostasy. Churches allied with the heretics also left the LCMS.
    I have been trying to follow the UMC split. After the vote in St. Louis, why didn’t the faithful majority retain the name UMC, the seminaries and the faithful congregations? Instead, unelected self-appointed ‘leaders’ formed the Protocol Committee, overturning the vote at the 2019 General Conference and requiring the faithful UMC churches to leave.
    How did the self-appointed Protocol Committee nullify the General Conference vote?

  3. Comment by dan jarrell on September 23, 2020 at 1:04 pm

    Sally- the UMC is currently in schism meaning that the majority of conferences in the US UMC have decided by both their bishops and their legislative bodies to not follow the legitimately determined rules for the UMC. There is no enforcement mechanism to make them do so. The UMC court has said they must follow the rules, but they admit that there is no means to make them do so. The bishops have decided to not follow the rules until the rules are changed to their liking. It is an institution that refuses to follow its own decision-making.

  4. Comment by William on September 24, 2020 at 4:22 pm

    Dan,
    These bishops who elected to ignore their vows, will have an opportunity to get their way. The Post Separation UMC will rapidly and officially liberalize, beginning with marriage and ordination of self-avowed, practicing homosexuals. They’ll then soon be back in conflict over all the other endless demands of the LGBT+, gender identity, and yet to be seen human sexuality movements. There’s not an imagination large enough at this juncture to envision what all this will include. But, the biggest issue that this PSUMC will have to face will be Biblical authority. Progressives have already started tossing Scriptures with which they disagree while declaring other Scripture as no longer binding. Of course there’s no end to such an approach as this. Perhaps they’ll eventually have to write their own Bible. A number of these bishops do not seem realize what they’re wishing for. And, perhaps a number of them will be awakened to what they’ve inherited, repent, and come back home to the true “new” Methodist Church that’s emerging out of the true old Methodist Church.

  5. Comment by dan jarrell on September 25, 2020 at 2:45 pm

    William- thanks, i understand all you wrote and agree.. But sally was asking why the the UMC is not following its own adopted rules.

    I agree that there is a real religious divide, but the institution is dead because its leaders refuse to follow its legitimately adopted rules. They have decided that they are above the rules- that the general conference has no legitimacy because they disagree. It is akin to the President deciding that he won’t have the irs collect a tax that he personally disagrees with. Our bishops and clergy have killed the UMC because they won’t follow the UMC rules.

    Following the rules is very important when factions don’t agree because that is the only way that people show that they are committed to making things work with those with whom the disagree. This group of people are not only faithless, but they have no integrity.

  6. Comment by John Smith on September 27, 2020 at 9:26 am

    My main problem is the slippery use of terms, continuing, reformed, evolving, etc.

    It seems the continuing UMC is the UMC that is changing the current standards; the reformed is keeping the current standards, the reformed is remaining in continuity with Wesleyan tradition, the continuing tradition is veering too far, …..

    This kind of play with words is what allowed a foothold in the beginning that led to the destruction of the UMC (it has been destroyed, we’re just waiting on the reading of the will and the actions of the heirs). I don’t think it is always intentional but will we never learn that the people who control the definitions control the debate?

  7. Comment by John Smith on September 27, 2020 at 9:33 am

    Sally,
    The difference between the LCMS and UMC split is the UMC’s leadership, the Bishops, are the ones embracing and advocating for heresy and there is no mechanism to hold the Bishops accountable. The only recourse for the members is departure and withholding of funds but is has little immediate effect. The membership numbers and financial problems speak for themselves but the current Bishops won’t feel the pinch.

  8. Comment by David Allen Charlton on October 13, 2020 at 10:55 am

    Is there a link to his actual address?

The work of IRD is made possible by your generous contributions.

Receive expert analysis in your inbox.