I’m not so much making a point with this post as asking a question. I have been in dialogue with a friend who asked: Is the unity of which we speak in the UMC a baseless unity? In other words, what is the common thread that runs through the UMC and holds us together?
Our unity does not lie in doctrine, though I believe that it should. But there are many clergy, including some bishops, who seem to have little regard for the Doctrinal Standards in the Discipline. They would point, rather, to the section called “Our Theological Task,” which articulates the method we have come to call the “Wesleyan Quadrilateral.”
That leads to the question: Is our unity in this theological method? Clearly, it is not. The method is so broad that it is virtually useless. To say, for example, that we consider scripture as primary is not a very helpful claim when we have so little agreement on the nature and function of scripture.
I’m not even going to suggest that our unity is in ethical issues or commitments to social justice. We’re all over the map here.
Is our unity, then, confined to matters of polity? Are we only held together by the trust clause and our pensions? I really, really don’t want the UMC to split. I would consider that a great tragedy. Yet what are our main reasons for staying together?
I’d appreciate receiving your comments below.
Oh, and be nice.
David F. Watson 
I hesitate to post as I don't have much to add. Your observation about polity would be accurate – we are united primary around a polity. I suspect that isn't resolvable. We are too big, too diverse for it to be any other way. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say we are united out of habit… we have been together so long we don't know what else we would do. I should add that I would be saddened at a split of any sort. I continue in my conviction that God called me in, to, and for The United Methodist Church. I struggle a bit these days to understand what that means,
United out of habit…. Maybe so.
This was a question that was brought up yesterday in our cluster, and I think that what keeps us united at this point is ignorance/apathy to the larger connection. Most UM churches aren't all that connected to the connection. The average member of a UM Church doesn't have a grasp on the polity of the connection, and if they even recognize that their UM Church is in some way connected to the UM Church down the street, the assumption is that the corporate life of that church is not significantly different from their own. If if wasn't for the occasional article making its way into the Dayton Daily News or USA Today, my guess is that the ecclesiastic life of UMs living in New York, Texas, California, or Georgia wouldn't even be on 99% of our folk's radar here in the Miami Valley. So for the 1% who are really invested in the UM, I think you are right that we are primarily United in Polity (pensions, trust clause, etc.), but for the majority of our folks, their commitment is to a local church, not an international connection.
I don't think this is unique to United Methodism. In small towns throughout the midwest there are conservative UCC churches that remain UCC because their commitment is to the local church, its life, history, and legacy–and no amount of progressive marketing will move them left or urge them to leave because they have learned that their life together is not dictated by those who have national power.
Caleb, I'm not convinced that all but 1% of people in our churches are so ignorant of the connection. Do you think you might be overstating this a bit?
Totally agree with your statement about the “Wesleyan quadrilateral” replacing our theology, instead of merely being how we “do” theology. A whole generation or more of us have grown up not knowing what we believe. Or even what Wesley believed and preached. Some of us are trying to correct that, now, as pastors.