Lots of people are talking about schism in the UMC. I’m one of them. I don’t want a schism, but I recognize that one may be inevitable. Is it possible, though, that United Methodists could separate into two denominations without constituting a schism?
There have been many schisms, separations, and splinters in the history of the Church, but two stand out as most significant. The first is the schism between the East and West, which actually took place over centuries, but was made official in 1054 when Cardinal Humbert, the envoy of Pole Leo IX, walked into Hagia Sophia and placed a document on the altar a document excommunicating Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius. Even after this time, Eastern and Western Christians lived and worshipped together. Eventually, however, a state of affairs emerged in which these eastern and western churches no longer recognized one another’s sacraments (including ordination), teaching authority, and liturgical traditions. There were other consequences as well, and over time they became two entirely separate communions.
The second major schism is of course the Protestant Reformation. We normally date the beginning of the Reformation to 1517, when Martin Luther nailed his “95 Theses” to the door of the church in Wittenberg. As with the first schism, however, this one was a long time in coming. The result was that we ended up with more Christians in separate communion from one another, without recognizing one another’s sacraments, ordination, liturgy, and teaching authority. Luther and many others were excommunicated. It wasn’t long, moreover, before Protestants began to break off from one another, each group insisting that it had the proper way to interpret scripture and the Christian life.
Ben Witherington of Asbury Seminary has recently written a blog post calling for another of these Protestant separations. He argues for the formation of a new Christian denomination that could be called something like the Progressive Methodist Church. Those United Methodists who cannot or will not live within the boundaries stipulated in the Book of Discipline, he says, should be allowed to go their own way in peace. They should be able to keep their properties and pensions. We should make all this as painless as possible, because the state we’re living in now can’t continue.
I’m not ready to endorse this idea, but there is something appealing about it. We have to find some way to let some air out of the balloon, or it’s going to pop. The last General Conference was a madhouse. I’m certain that the next one will be worse.
So let’s say we took Dr. Witherington’s advice and separated amicably into the Progressive Methodist Church and The United Methodist Church. This would not necessarily constitute a smaller scale version of the Great Schism of 1054 or the Protestant Reformation. It seems likely, for example, that we would recognize one another’s sacramental authority. Implicitly, then, we would recognize the ordination of the people who performed the sacraments. After all, we recognize the sacramental authority of many different traditions. In fact, the UMC is already in full communion with the ELCA (which ordains gay and lesbian people), which means, among other things, that we may exchange clergy with one another. We implicitly recognize the ordination of very broad range of traditions by recognizing the baptism of virtually every other Christian group. Last I checked, we don’t ask if the person who performed the baptism was gay. Problems could arise if the baptism was in some name other than Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but that’s probably about it. Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, ELCA, PCA, PCUSA, UCC, Southern Baptist—it doesn’t really matter. If the minister was ordained in his/her tradition, we recognize his or her sacramental authority. It would require a full-communion agreement to bring their ministers into our churches, but we nevertheless implicitly state that their ordination is valid.
If the UMC separated into two different denominations, would we be less generous with one another than we are with, say, the Lutherans? It seems unlikely. What we’re talking about then, is not a schism, but a separation.
You may say, “You’re splitting hairs, here, Watson! You’re arguing semantics!” No, imaginary interlocutor, I am not. For Christians to recognize one another’s ordinations and sacramental authority is one of the most important ways in which we can promote unity in the body of Christ. It is the opposite of schism, and it is much more important than a denominational structure or some other formal means of identifying various Christian groups. Why? Sacrament is where the real action is in Christianity. The sacraments are where we most directly encounter God. When we say that we recognize one another’s sacraments and ordinations, we’re saying that in these sacramental activities, God is really showing up. Christ really is mediated to us by the power of the Holy Spirit. Is there anything more important than that?
David F. Watson 
Why would I offer full communion with someone I view as espousing views contrary to what I believe is Christianity? If I was one who believed homosexuality is immoral, anti-Christian, and a tool of satan, and thus helped to remove those who did not would I really offer recognition of someone who is gay, or a church that allows gay clergy?
Or, if I didn’t recognize the Christianity of those who support full inclusion, why would I then offer full communion?
If it cannot be done while someone is within the family, then it will not be done when a divorce happens.
But Joel, we already doing this. We would have to revoke full communion agreements with the ELCA and Episcopal Church.
and why wouldn’t a conservative group do that? If they want to strip progressive/liberal/moderates out of the Church, why not go ahead and revoke the full communion of those churches representative of the very people you* want out of UMC.
*you doesn’t mean you, but the remaining conservative element.
Hi Dr. Watson,
I thought we are not yet in full Communion with the Episcopal Church and one of the hang-ups is precisely this debate (unless I missed something?). We entered into full communion with the ELCA in the summer of 2008 and when that move was approved by the Lutherans (it had been approved earlier in the summer by our GC), they still had the same disciplinary requirements we currently have regarding sexual morality – my understanding is that shortly thereafter, however, their governing convention then changed their stance. So the question is open as to whether our church would or should ever deliberately entered full communion with anyone who did not share our views on this issue – I don’t think that we have to date chosen to do so, and I suspect there would be a lively debate about that if the issue came before GC.
Daniel, I think you’re correct on this. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I will make the correction in the article.
By the way, sorry it took so long to get your comment up. It was marked as spam for some reason. I think I’ve corrected this.
Joel, I could foresee that happening depending upon the nature of the separation. If, as Witherington suggests, a Progressive Methodist Church was formed, this would likely leave the moderates and conservatives in one denomination. That group would be less likely to get rid of full communion agreements. If, however, a highly conservative group left the larger whole, it seems more likely that the full communion agreements go away.
When as any endeavor such as this left the moderates alone? Look at the GOP and the factions there. The moderates are getting pushed out.
I mean, the French Revolution.
I do think that there is a tendency for the more extreme elements in any group to determine the agenda. Your comment about the GOP is a good point.
I think you make a valid point. Although I am not in support of a separation, I do agree that the hypothetical conversation, if it happens at all, should not include the word “schism”. I would hope that the Church, universal, is past the place where we judge and throw stones at each other… regardless of our differences or denominations. And I agree, through Christ we have a unity with each that runs far deeper than our denominational loyalties.
I hope you’re right, Joe.
I was recently talking with two US UMC Bishops about the future and both of them espoused the view that if a schism/separation occurred it would likely be 3-ways–progressives, moderates, and traditionalists.
It’s hard to see the Methodist moderates joining teams with line-ups of resurrection-deniers or with homosexual-practice-is-a-sin-promoters.
[By this analogy, I don’t mean that resurrection-denying & ‘inclusiveness’ go hand in hand but that the most progressive people would all leave together.]
I do think a three-way split could happen. No one really knows how this is going to come out in the wash.
David, I appreciate your ongoing thoughts on this important and looming issue. Like you I don’t want to see a separation. I should probably review my church history more here but I wonder how the splits we experienced in the 19th century inform the current situation – the denominations that were started by people who left (not really separations or schisms) and the 1844 split north and south? The 1844 split comes to mind because it was due to an issue, in that case slavery. Thinking out loud more than anything…
Indeed, the church was divided over slavery, though that is a much more directly civil issue, whereas the current debates over ordination and marriage are more ecclesiastical.
Yes I agree to a point but I think the parallel is stronger than one might at first think given the fact that, like slavery, the civil society is wrestling with the same issue (in terms of homosexuality at least)… this is a rabbit trail but I think the deeper ecclesiastical issues are around ordination. Marriage overlaps both civil and church society in a different way than ordination. And there is the oddity (in my view) of pastors acting as civil servants in the performance of weddings.
Randy