71 thoughts on “Reader’s Poll: Do We Really Want Division?”

1. I remember a professor in my undergraduate psychometrics class teaching us that the wording of your question can greatly influence the results. I suspect this may be the case with your poll. I’m pretty sure that no one actually WANTS division. The very idea is painful. That said, it may well be our best way forward given the intransigence of the situation.

   • I do agree that wording affects outcome. I’m not as sure, though, that no one really wants division.

2. I agree with Beth. I voted “yes” but only because “no” means we stay together as is, with our current disagreements. Ideally I would rather we not split, our bishops uphold the BoD, and those who insist on being divisive find a new home to do ministry with integrity. If that can’t happen, then we need to split. Though I don’t “want” it.

   • I hear that. I guess what I’m asking is, given the current state of things, do readers think we should split or not. If we could vote today, what would we decide?

     • I don’t want a split and would not vote for it today.
       However, the reality is that we are already deeply divided and a split is in progress. The main question is who will retain custody of the current structure. Here’s why I say this:
       Bishop (and former professor) Scott Jones points out that unity is by-product of:
       1. Doctrine: what we believe
       2. Discipline: how we order our life together
       3. Mission: what we seek to accomplish in the world
       I do not think the UMC has exhibited unity in these three foundational areas for a long time, and now it is not sufficient to withstand the pressure applied by the culture when it comes to the homosexual issue.
       > Doctrine: Each side of the debate believes their position is self-evident because each holds to a theology which makes their stance logical. To expect people to change their position is to expect them to change their theology. It is not solely a matter of biblical authority; the two camps also differ in their understanding of the nature of sin, redemption, and sanctification.
       > Discipline: Often theologically liberal, Mainline churches used to be fundamentalist when it came to polity. No more. We are not unified in the polity we are pursuing when it comes to sexuality issues.
       > Mission: Methodists started with the shared goal of “spreading scriptural holiness across the land.” Everyone knew what that meant and it drove the movement. That clear focus has been long gone. Now shared mission is at best a general sense of serving which is not unique to our denomination.

       We are in the throes of redefining the character of United Methodism. One way or another we are in the process of answering the question as to what will be the prevailing doctrine, polity and mission of the UMC.

3. Perhaps the question should be “What do you think is the appropriate way forward for the United Methodist Church?” That would take out the sense of “want” vs. “need” that the current wording presents. Unless you are specifically looking for that “want” as “need” rather than “what might be best” in your poll.

4. This morning I thought, how interesting…. The group that wants to leave is the group that wants the Book of Discipline to remain the same. And the group that appears willing to stay and work things out, or at least doesn’t want to leave the United Methodist denomination per se, are the ones who would like to see the wording in the BOD changed. Is this curious to anyone but me? Is there a deeper message, here, in this fact?

   • Kim, the answer I think comes down to each side’s view on sin. The progressives who want the BoD changed and don’t want to split are convinced that the issue at hand is not sin, and therefore why all the fuss? The other side is convinced that we are talking about sexual immorality, and therefore texts like Matthew 18 and 1 Cor. 5 give pretty clear marching orders about how to proceed with those who continue in unrepentant sin.

     • Exactly on point, Chad. There’s no biblical command to stay ball-and-chain tied to a sectarian progressive aberration of historic Methodism. But I’ve seen the circularity spouted liberally (even by some orthodox academics). They say (on the one hand) that we should not divide the “church,” but (on the other hand) remind us that United Methodism is NOT the Church. This is a non sequitur.

   • If you take a look the finances of some of the most radically progressive Annual Conferences you will find that they are not self-supporting. The denominational bills are largely paid by conservatives. The apportionments/tithes from larger evangelical are especially significant. These largest churches would be the most likely to leave. I’m not going to say this is the only reason behind your observation Kim, but I think it is a factor.

   • KIm,
     I believe this curious dynamic is part appearance and part reality.
     First, some who can’t abide the Discipline’s current stance have already left for denominations more friendly to their views. This is an invisible split by some progressives.
     Second, because there are large regions of the UMC where the leadership refuses to enforce the Discipline in any meaningful way (Pacific Northwest, New York, California…), many clergy are functioning as if it was already changed, making it very comfortable to “stay” and wait for official change.
     Those who believe the Discipline is stating the biblical view see the stance increasingly ignored and the drumbeat growing ever louder to change it, making the church feel more alien all the time. Thus the talk of leaving,

   • I laughed as I read that because you seem to be right. I had not looked at it that way before.

5. I WANT a major transformation in the church. Frankly, I think the current incarnation of American Methodism should end so that a more vibrant Wesleyan movement might emerge. We ought to have a service celebrating the good we have done together, and then die (as a corporation) so that the Wesleyan movement might be reborn. Imagine if we sold most of our property, gave the proceeds to the poor, began meeting in home covenant groups, and hit the streets with the Good News of the Gospel-enough of the inherently divisive form of government modeled after the US Constitution and “best practices” of American business. There are better, more faithful ways to organize a Christian community.

   • That’ll preach. And it sounds like something that progressives, conservatives, and moderates need to hear (and might even get behind).

     • Sadly, I don’t think it would fly at all unless the Lord REALLY backs it. The successful pastors and laity we elect to General Conference tend to be satisfied with the status quo of their megachurches. I don’t see it happening. I think I may be the only person who has thought of the idea, and as a retired pastor with no pulpit to preach from I have little say anymore. (Perhaps you can see WHY I have no pulpit–this idea is too radical for today’s church.)

   • Holly you have a good point. In Tampa it became apparent that the system itself is broken. We need a major overhaul in the structures and finances and yet those very structures and financial systems make it impossible to pass reform at General Conference. I told someone the other day that I’m not confident that GC could manage to agree to pick carpet color for a church sanctuary, much less the major business that needs to be done to bring renewal. It is very frustrating.

     • Exactly, Beth Ann. At this point, I’ve pretty much decided that the best course of action for me is to disengage from the church. As a retired pastor, I no longer have a “seat at the table” anyway. Still, it is hard to step back.

Comments are closed.