Many of my theological friends in the UMC–brothers and sisters in Christ–are much more progressive than I am. I feel the need to state publicly that I value these friends a great deal. I learn from them. They challenge me and keep me from becoming too comfortable with my own positions. They remind me that my own ideas are necessarily fallible and incomplete. I hope they value me, too. I’d like to think that our conversations have in some small ways helped them to grow in the life of faith.
I’m afraid, though, that after 2016, these theological friends and I–these brothers and sisters in Christ–will no longer share a worshipping community. The denomination has reached a breaking point. Of course, our disagreements over many topics, most prominently “homosexual practice,” are nothing new. What is different now than in the last four decades? The answer is quite clear: ecclesial disobedience. Some clergy, including some bishops, have made the decision to disobey publicly the denomination’s church law regarding gay marriage and ordination. The hope seems to be to embolden others who hold similar ethical positions and bring about a change of denominational policy.
The model for this practice of ecclesial disobedience is the U.S. civil rights movement which brought about change through peaceful, public acts of civil disobedience. There are, however, at least three important ways in which civil disobedience is unlike ecclesial disobedience.
1. For most of us, our national citizenship is not altogether voluntary. It’s much more difficult to say, “You know, I think I’d make a better Norwegian or Guatamalan than American,” than it is to say, “You know, I think I’d fit better in the UCC or the Southern Baptist Church than in the UMC.” Yes, hypothetically, each of us could emigrate to another country, but for most of us this simply isn’t a live option.
2. Unlike our national citizenship, ordination is a sacred covenant between the individual, God, and the church. If we engage in acts of civil disobedience, we are not violating a sacred covenant as we are in the case of ecclesial disobedience.
3.Presumably, we know what we’re signing on for when we’re ordained. (If not, you need to have a talk with your UM Polity instructor.) We know what kind of body we’re joining. We know its ideals, rules, standards, and ethical positions. Unless we immigrate to the U.S. from another country, this isn’t the kind of decision we make about national citizenship. When folks do immigrate from another country to the U.S., it is often because they are seeking a better way of life, and not because they wish to undermine the ideals of our nation. In fact, we take a very dim view of immigration with the intention of undermining our national ideals.
Willful acts of disobedience to the church as acts of protest, then, are quite different than acts of civil disobedience. I’m sure that some readers could point out differences that I haven’t brought up here. In light of these differences, it is incumbent upon the protesters to demonstrate that this is an ethical and appropriate way to bring about change in the denomination.
Let’s be clear: the inevitable result of this kind of action, if it continues, will be a division of the denomination. It will not be reform of the denomination. That would have to come through some action of the General Conference, but what has precipitated these acts of ecclesial disobedience to start with is the fact that the progressives cannot get what they want at the General Conference level. Acts of ecclesial disobedience will not sway conservatives toward the progressive position. In fact, it will probably bring about a greater level of entrenchment. One reason for further entrenchment will be the fact that the denomination cannot allow this kind of action to change church law in lieu of the decisions of the General Conference. If we do allow this, then every group that feels strongly about its position in opposition to the Discipline can move its agenda forward by circumventing our established procedures.
It’s worth noting that the Protestant “Reformation” was really a Protestant schism. The Protestant impulse ever since has been to divide when we cannot agree. Now, let’s keep in mind that we Wesleyans are really not very good Protestants. Our parent tradition, the Anglican Church, was not born out of a theological protest (as, say, the Lutherans were), but out of a political dispute. Further, rather than being the heirs of sola Scriptura, we are the heirs of the Anglican “Middle Way,” which relied upon the three-legged stool of scripture, tradition, and reason. All this notwithstanding, however, we’ve soaked in enough real Protestantism from other traditions that we know a good opportunity to split off from one another when we see one. The disintegration of our structures of governance and authority will surely provide sufficient reason.
This is all leading up to a few questions that we should think through denominationally:
1) At what point does one’s individual conscience supersede the collective decisions of the body to which one is ordained?
2) What is the appropriate response when we feel the body to which we are ordained is acting unethically?
3) What are we to think about people who seek ordination with the intention of undermining the collective decisions of the body that will ordain them?
To be clear, I’m not calling for division. I don’t want division. I want to worship alongside brothers and sisters in the faith who help me think more deeply about God. I’m simply pointing out what I think is going to happen if we continue on our current trajectory. I’m interested in reading your comments and hope you’ll help me think through these issues.
David F. Watson 
Good article Dave, but part of your conclusion is wrong. You are far too optimistic. The result won’t be division. That, too, would require an action of the GC, and the GC will never do this. It is not even clear if the bureaucracy of the GC could do this. The Judicial Council would probably just throw the decision out the next day anyway. There will be no division of the denomination. Instead we face the end of the denomination. It will not come too quickly. Progressives will either continue to break the Discipline or will change it. No mater which, conservative churches will try to leave. The Church will take them to court. It will end up costing massive amounts of money, money that we don’t have, and that would better be spent on other things. In the end, it will just add more blood to the hemorrhaging that we already witness in the Church. This is all to say that I don’t disagree with your argument here, but you are putting too bright a face on what we are looking at for the future.
I am afraid you are correct, kevinmcarnahan. The progressives have demonstrated a “scorched earth” mentality.
Thank you, Grow, for illustrating the problem.
We’ve become the PC(USA)
Look at The Episcopal Church. That is where the ultra liberals wanted the UMC to end up, exactly like that.
Thank you for illustrating the problem Nick.
I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that pointing to an EXAMPLE was “illustrating the problem” but suit yourself sir.
Oh, please continue to play the “I am ignorant that I am playing the blame game” Nick. It is so entertaining!
The blame is people buying into heresy. And the Episcopal Church is an example of what happens when you do,Kevin. I’m not going to sugar coat anything for anyone.
And so I shall merely repeat. “Thanks for illustrating the problem Nick”
You sound like a broken record,Kevin. Instead of griping about everyone’s nearly universal opinion, do you have a solution, or are you just trolling??
Kevin, play nice! You are becoming… What’s the word…. Irascible? Cantankerous? Querulous? (No one answer this except Kevin, please!)
The disobedience method works. If enough people do it. Look at the Episcopal Church and how they changed their policy towards women and gay ordination. Bishops simply did it and there were no punitive consequences. The policies get changed on the ground and the official written rules catch up later. There is a price for using this method. All rules go out the window except those that can be enforced through the courts usually pertaining to real estate.
Those who break faith and are disobedient will find themselves devoid of members who believe in traditional orthodoxy. We will take our membership, our service, and money elsewhere. Many have already left UMC because of this; and if the discipline is changed to reflect the progressive ideas, more will leave. I love my church and my friends there, but I love God more. He sent His Son, HIs only Son, to die for me. No one else has loved me that much.
Thank you both for illustrating the problem. This is what we need. More of the blame game, because THAT is what has worked out so well in the Episcopal tradition.
It does seem like two extreme sides driving the UMC to a division that nobody wants, but nobody seems willing to flinch to avoid. The attitude we see in the church is reflecting the attitude we see in the rest of the world. We also see this divide in politics, sports, etc. It is the idea that we would rather captain a sinking ship than serve on a seaworthy vessel. My only disagreement is that I do not think it will be a division between progressive and conservative, but rather a splinter with numerous groups forming and going their own way. Once the possibility for division exists and the trust clause is not enforced, other groups frustrated (with itineracy, apportionments, supporting smaller churches, conference structure, etc.) will take the opportunity to leave.
I agree, Jonathan. A two-way split may fracture into many others.
Kevin, I came out of the Episcopal church and I am here to tell you it wasn’t as clean a break as you make it seem. The churches fell apart. People not only left the Episcopal church, but Christianity. They did not want to have anything to do with “those” people. Because in the midst of the fight… they did not see the love, grace, mercy and forgiveness of Christ. There very thing we stand upon.
Please, please do not think that disobedience is a method that works. It is a method that harms and tears things apart. We are supposed to be a people of Open hearts, Open Minds and Open Doors. I believe this means even to those with whom you disagree. Who better to help you grow and stretch your own insight than someone who tells you there is another way to see something.
Beth Ann
I am also an Episcopal refugee. I did not claim that it was clean and painless. The disobedience method within TEC effectively changed their doctrine and policy. The change advocates got what they wanted. They did not care at what price. The disobedience method absolutely works if enough people climb onboard. TEC’s official policies have changed. No arguing that point. The consequences of those changes are painful. Eventually it comes down to people who used to worship together no longer on speaking terms.
Beth, Anne, I agree that there will be many people who will simply leave the faith altogether. We’re going to have to answer at the pearly gates for that one.