Good News has just published a press statement regarding some eighty pastors and theologians who are calling for a division of the denomination.
A group of leading pastors and theologians released a progress report on their considerations regarding the future of The United Methodist Church. Hailing from all five jurisdictions, the more than 80 pastors and theologians have engaged in sober and prayerful conversations via conference call over the past two months. The discussion was launched because the group believes that our denomination is facing a crisis regarding 1.) covenant, 2.) organizational discipline, 3.) authority of Scripture, and 4.) discipleship.
“deep breath* Ok…
First of all, on whose behalf do these eighty leading pastors and theologians speak? I can’t discern a direct affiliation with any particular caucus group. I’ve heard about these conversations, but I really don’t even know who was involved with them, with the exception of a few people. The fact that eighty pastors and theologians are calling for a split is not necessarily compelling for me, particularly since I don’t know who most of these folks are, what their positions are, or how they were selected to participate in this conversation. I would like to know how these folks arrived at this decision, and what plans they have for executing the division.
Additionally, before I support the formation of a new Wesleyan/Methodist denomination, I’d like to know what I’m signing on for. I have deep commitments to doctrinal orthodoxy, and I’m not in the least appreciative of the “ecclesial disobedience” that has taken place on the progressive side of our arguments. If there were a split, I would very likely go with the more conservative branch of the two divisions (assuming I went with either). It’s premature to make this judgment, however, without knowing what we’re getting into. How will the two groups describe the nature and function of scripture? What statements will each group make about human sexuality? How will each group determine its doctrinal standards? How will its polity be organized? How will it handle itinerancy? What will each group have to say about seminary education, and which schools will each group support?
A few more concerns:
There are some large churches that pay very large apportionments to their conferences. If I’m at a Ginghamsburg or a Church of the Resurrection, why would I wish to affiliate with either new denomination? How does that benefit my congregation? I could see many larger, wealthier congregations simply going independent.
What will happen to missionary work, schools, and other ministries that rely upon support from general boards and agencies of the denomination?
Can our current polity allow for a split? This may sound like a rather silly question, since if we divided we would no longer share a Book of Discipline. But the decision to split would have to come from within the UMC, and it would not surprise me at all if it were struck down by our Judicial Council. If that happens, then the only recourse will be to do what some progressive churches are doing right now, essentially divesting from the denomination. That could well lead to legal battles.Before going down this road, we would do well to learn from what has happened to the Episcopal Church.
I don’t believe in the reality of an amicable separation. Yes, we may separate, but it will not be amicable. It will be brutal. Will it be left to individual congregations to sort out which side of the dispute they want to go with? Top-level leaders sorting out the division of our pension fund may behave with all due civility, but the church council meetings that will follow will be ugly. The folks I really hurt for in all of this are the people of the local church whose lives are not wrapped up in the political realities of our denominations, people who just want to attend church, worship God, and do good. Many of those people will leave and not come back. They will go to Bible churches, other denominations, or simply never return to church.
All this having been said, I stand by what I wrote on ecclesial disobedience: if it continues, the inevitable result will be division. There is no way around it. Ecclesial disobedience represents a breakdown in the way in which we order our lives together. That breakdown has already been quite costly, and it may cost us much more going forward.
David F. Watson 
Your questions are my questions, David. I am in agreement that our current situation is not sustainable, but I want to see where we might be going and what a new church might look like. I’m not interested in moving toward a generic reformed evangelicalism with a Methodist flavor. I agree with Kevin that the doctrine of any new denomination would need to reflect a deep orthodox Wesleyan theology and practice in order for me to feel good about being part of it. If we’re going to become closet neo-Calvinists, I’m not going there. I think the group hasn’t gotten that far yet, but I would put in my two cents that people need to know what they might be jumping to before they jump off this sinking ship.
Conservatives in the UMC seem to dislike concentrations of power, whether it is the Council of Bishops, a set-aside President of the COB, or the Connectional Table. But they seem not to mind making their own self-selected COB/Connectional Table to decide, unilaterally, on the future of the church. How strange.
Some how I see Jesus standing outside of Jerusalem with tears running down his cheeks. I am new to Methodist in the sense that I just now started the path to Ordination and I feel a lot of anxiety about this split. I trusted you Dr Watson to train me shepherd a flock and I stand behind you on this issue.
I’m sorta with Bill here – new to United Methodism (non-ordination route).
David, the parting of ways was foreshadowed in the first acts of disobedience (as in the Garden) and in the dithering or refusal of bishops with whom conservatives have plead for redress. My own conference has been transformed into a progressive phalanx on sexuality, even though orthodox colleagues repeatedly warned this would disestablish the covenant. Strangely, our cabinet leaders scoff at the notion of covenant. Their tactical reply is, “What covenant?”
I am sort of surprised that this particular group is advocating for going down this path. I mean, the trajectory that we are on is for votes on altering the statement on homosexuality to be continually struck down because conservatives/evangelicals are growing while liberals/progressives are shrinking. I sort of thought that conservative/evangelical side was just going to let things play out.
I sent a letter an e-mail to one of my professors when the bishop in New York simply dismissed the charges against an individual charged with conducting a same-sex marriage – saying to him that his act was the turning point. Everybody has been playing within the rules but now the game is over since the rules are being ignored.
As a conservative/evangelical, I am sick and tired of all of it. It’s just gotten really old and enough is enough. But I too am wary about starting any sort of new denomination or splitting. What’s going to happen to the agencies – and I’m talking about the good ones like UMCOR (the rest of them can die off, who cares)? How can you split UMCOR? And I think it would be kind of goofy to have two churches – one of them named Progressive UMC and Evangelical/Orthodox/Conservative UMC – confusing anyone?
Honestly, I think this is a move by these leaders to make the bishops and all the other movers and shakers know that they mean business and they need to cut the crap. No more blah, blah, blah about unity while a bunch of extremists are allowed to do whatever they want at official UMC meetings. No more unspoken rules that radical liberals can go on rants and say while evangelical/conservatives are supposed to shut up, pay their apportionments, and be good little boys and girls.
There is, by the way, an Evangelical MC already out there.
And your point is?
Josh, my point is that the EMC meets some of the “new” scriptural definitions used by these still yet unidentified (except for a few) pastors (the only identified are men) as well as other certain positions. Indeed, a “conservative UMC denomination” already exists, either in the Free Methodist or the Evangelical Methodist.