For some time I have lamented the fact that our conversations in United Methodism have been so myopic. We argue about human sexuality, and this topic dominates social media, discussions related to the Connectional Table, annual conferences, and the General Conference. Of course, human sexuality is an important topic, one worth talking about, but there are many important topics, and most are lost in our current denominational shouting match.
I never thought there would be a topic that would dethrone human sexuality from its privileged place at the top of the UM agenda. I was wrong. We have now entered into a period of unprecedented navel-gazing. We have fixated on avoiding “schism,” and even the mere mention of the word has the power to shape delegations and bring together groups that seem to have little in common otherwise.
I have to admit, I have been taken aback by the power of this political strategy. In West Ohio, evangelicals, who usually make a strong showing, were just royally trounced by a coalition of centrists and progressives. One evangelical clergy person was elected to General Conference. The centrists and progressives in our conference combined their slate, while raising the specter of “schism” in social media. It was a kind of Methodist Red Scare. And it worked.
None of the evangelical leaders in West Ohio has supported a denominational division. The leadership of the Evangelical Fellowship of West Ohio was approached about this, but they declined to participate. As one who was on the evangelical slate, I was implicitly thrown in among the “schismatics” despite my many public statements against dividing the denomination. United Methodism is the church of my baptism, confirmation, and ordination. I have never belonged to any other tradition. I grew up in UMYF. I attended a UM seminary and took vows to uphold the doctrines and disciplines of this tradition. My wife and I were married in a UM church by a UM minister. I served on the staff of a UM church in Dallas, and now serve as the Academic Dean of a UM seminary. I have served on the Miami Valley District Committee on Ordained Ministry, the West Ohio Board of Ordained Ministry, the Inclusive Body of Christ Ministry Team, and the University Senate. I attend a UM congregation weekly with my family and am raising my children in this tradition. Heck, I co-wrote a book called Key United Methodist Beliefs. Perhaps you can see, then, why I would be a bit offended at the implication that I want to destroy this church.
In times of crisis, however, facts and rationality become luxuries many feel we cannot afford. Let’s think for a moment about the possibility of “schism” in our denomination. Would election of more evangelical candidates to the General Conference likely result in a denominational division? If we answer “yes” to this question, we are assuming that the tendency among evangelicals is toward division. Keep in mind, however, that when a few key leaders associated with Good News called a group of eighty or so evangelical United Methodist pastors and other church leaders together to discuss division, the group ultimately opted against a split. They made a conscious decision, at least at that time, that the division of the denomination was not something they wished to pursue. Yet rather than take this as a sign that evangelical UM leaders favored keeping the denomination together, many in the UMC have taken this as a sign that evangelicals wish to split the denomination. It is contrary to reason, but reason be damned. The possibility of division is a powerful political tool.
Even if it were true, however, that the majority of evangelicals wished to split the denomination, and even if these church-splitters could in fact get enough of their ilk elected to GC, how would they go about engineering this split? Maybe I’m missing something. That’s entirely possible. Yet I can’t see any way that a legislative division could take place. As I have argued before,
The idea that evangelicals will vote the church into division at General Conference is simply unrealistic. Just for the sake of argument, let’s assume for a moment that most evangelicals do want division (an assumption that I do not in fact hold). Let’s also assume that enough of these divisive folks were elected to General Conference to gain a majority vote. How would they go about dividing the denomination at General Conference? Through legislation? What form could such legislation take? It would either require a constitutional amendment or violate the constitution of the UMC. In the first case, it would take a supermajority of delegates and annual conferences to pass. That such legislation could gain such widespread support seems exceedingly unlikely. In the second case, it would be struck down by the Judicial Council. It would be pointless, and any delegate worth his or her salt will know this. If the division of the church does happen, it won’t happen through legislation. It will happen by individual churches leaving the denomination, and possibly forming some other type of association among themselves.
David F. Watson 
Pingback: Stop Oppressing Methodist Evangelicals! | Eremitic Musings
Only the biblical revisionists are opposed to the UMC of today — our beliefs and doctrines. Evangelicals want the UMC to continue and be strong in these beliefs. So why would anyone not think it is the revisionists who want a divided church — one where they get to do whatever they want, and the evangelicals continue to financially support this divided church?
I believe this is in reaction to the statement released by Good News Magazine last year which at least implied that a number of evangelical leaders in the denomination were interested in dividing it between traditionalists and progressives. Whether you call what they suggested schism or not, it let most of us with the implication that the traditionalists were finally ready to leave the church or have it split up over the issue of human sexuality and wanted to create a quote “win-win” scenario where both sides got to keep their assets. I’m not sure how you could argue that kind of arrangement “isn’t” schism, but I’m really not interested in arguing over semantics. If you’re wondering why your own name is being associated with schism it probably has to do with the proposal with Dr. Arnold you endorsed earlier this year which would temporarily suspend the trust clause to let churches opt to leave the denomination, again with all their assets intact during a set period of time. So perhaps while not a schism in the pure sense of advocating the establishment of an entirely different denomination, it would still have the same effect of opening the door for churches to break away more easily and try to get rid of those Methodists you disagree with. Whether you like the term schism or not Rev. Watson the fact of the matter is that you and a significant number of evangelicals have tied efforts to divide or break up the church between its traditionalist and progressive wings. I think what you’re discovering to your frustration I’m sure is that you’ve ignored the moderates who think the church has benefited from diverse voices and underestimated their ability to organize. You’ve overplayed your hand and now the pot is coming up empty. If you really want to stop being associated with schism, I suggest you make a statement calling for continued dialogue and respect between all United Methodists around the question of human sexuality.
Philip, thank you for your comment, but I must disagree with your assessment of the A & W Plan. It is not a plan to get rid of progressives. In no way does it alter the prerogative UMC clergy or laity to speak their mind, vote their conscience, or attempt to change denominational policies by legitimate means. It simply opens to door for those who cannot or will not live within these policies. My guess is that very few churches would take this opportunity were it available to them. There are some who have tried to paint this as a plan for schism, but that is simply a mischaracterization. No church or denomination can hang together while its system of self-governance is systematically undermined, which is what has happened in the UMC over the last few years. I realize that many folks don’t like this plan, and I respect their prerogative to disagree and state their disagreement. But what will insure a major division is not something like what Dr. Arnold and I have proposed, but a de facto agreement that all the people should do what is right in their own eyes.
Those who wish to leave the denomination (traditionalist, progressive, or centrist) are free to do so at anytime. We simply do not allow them to take United Methodist property and assets with them as if it is theirs. It might sound harsh, but the fact of the matter is that my church or your church doesn’t belong to us. It belongs to God and is entrusted to the United Methodist Church who in turn appoints all of us as its stewards. We’re not a congregationalist tradition, never have been and never will be. Even our ancestors in 1844 knew as much. The base unit for our denomination isn’t the congregation, but the conference. We are fundamentally a connectional people and would abandon some key piece of our identity if we ceased to be, even if we did as your plan suggests and closed eyes for a minute (or four years) so those who wish it otherwise could quietly sneak out. And rest assured that I and many others will resist any attempt to break our connection whether it comes from a traditionalist, a progressive, or whoever.
And if you want a presiding bishop, I suggest you find to reanimate Francis Asbury because I don’t think any bishop alive today could handle the responsiblity.
Just keep on twisting reality buddy and saying the same old things over and over. Whatever you call yourselves, progressives, moderates, centrists, liberals, whatever, you folks are going to be kings without a kingdom here before long.
You might ought to spend some time meditating on the 7 churches in Revelation. Christ is not absent or unconcerned for his churches. He knows which ones are flirting with Jezebel and allowing sexual immorality to be practiced. And, if repentance does not happen, he will come and take away the lampstand. It’s his church – don’t forget that.
You guys keep playing these political games and trying to one up one another. You are going to reap what you sow.
Our church has many short-comings for which it will have to answer for someday I am sure, but welcoming homosexuals and lesbians is not one that keeps me up at night. I’m much more worried about who we leave out rather than what we let in.
Sounds like the centrists and liberals have been reading Clausewitz. No surprise that centrists and liberals should use fear as a political weapon. No surprise that truth should be the first victim of their effort to advance a social/political agenda. Disappointment. Yes. But surprise? No. No surprise. No surprise at all.
David, this is an amazing post. The clarity of it is breathtaking. But now what? There are many faithful evangelical pastors who are now waiting on a word.
Gary, I wish I knew. I think we just have to pray…. Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit says the Lord Almighty. Sometimes I think we’re too focused on “doing.” Maybe even blogging in this way is too much. Again, I don’t know….