The United Methodist Church (UMC) continues to struggle over the place of LGBTQ Christians in our church, and as the Commission on a Way Forward (COWF) resumes its work, the idea of schism lurks around that process. We see how the issue divided other churches, as the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, and the Episcopal Church all experienced breakaway denominations after approving the ordination of LGBTQ persons. We recall the splintering of American Methodism as dozens of groups at various times no longer found Methodism a comfortable home. We recognize Methodism’s larger fracture over slavery in 1844 that divided us into northern and southern bodies. Many fear we are headed to another separation; others believe we are already there and just need to make it official.
Before we rush to such a divorce, we should consider carefully what the impact will be at all levels of the church. Many individuals will feel conflicted, and members of the same family may be pulled in different directions. While there are progressive and conservative congregations that are clear about where they would settle, the great majority of local churches would find themselves torn in two. James C. Howell offers a vision of what a congregational split would look like, using the church he serves as the example. He details the loss of members, the division of property, the fracturing of families, and the loss of resources for missions.
Congregations are not the only groups that would be divided. A UM Deaconess said to me once, “What would happen to us?” A small group within the UMC, the Deaconesses and Home Missioners would become even smaller and lose their internal diversity – likewise with United Methodist Women, United Methodist Men, and college and youth ministries. Agencies would be divided, and mission efforts thrown into chaos.
Methodism would cease to be the “big tent” church that has proudly made room for disagreement that does not threaten our core identity. There are factions within the UMC that see our response to LGBTQ persons as representing deeper, core values, but most United Methodists do not see this as an issue that should divide the church. At a time when the needs of the world cry out around us, are we serving Christ well by devoting so many resources to an issue that has no easy resolution?
History tells us that we are stronger if we remain united. After nearly a century apart, the Methodist Episcopal Church (MEC), MEC South, and Methodist Protestant Church approved reunion to become the Methodist Church in 1939. But unification came at a cost – a cost that differed for each side. Segregationists who advocated for a separate denomination for African American Methodists lost out to those who argued for a single body. Those who sought union on equal footing saw the creation of a segregated institution that, for many, remains a point of deep shame. We like to think we’ve moved beyond racism, but our country clearly has not, and there are no doubt United Methodists who wish the color line was still in place. The institutional resolution did not resolve our differences.
Perhaps the most persuasive argument that brought the north and south together in 1939 was that a unified church could stand more strongly against fascism and other global problems at the time. We face equally daunting challenges today. Climate change has unleashed more frequent and more devastating storms, along with droughts and rising sea levels that threaten our most vulnerable communities. Vicious partisanship and outright hostility to racial and religious groups spawn hate speech and crimes. The recent tax bill will put more money in the pockets of wealthy individuals and corporations, while those in poverty see little benefit. The crisis of opioid addiction has been declared a national health emergency.
Methodism’s strong history of social justice includes disaster relief, ecological ministries, inter-religious dialogue, and global health programs that address those very problems. But we have less to devote to those efforts when our resources are tied up in an ongoing contest about the rights of LGBTQ persons. Just as in 1939, any solution the COWF offers will not resolve our differences. The question is whether enough of us share core beliefs to remain a single body that is better able to minister to a hurting world. Any compromise will leave folks on both ends of the spectrum dissatisfied, and many individuals and congregations may well leave, as they have at other such times. But will we, as Methodists did 80 years ago, realize that we are stronger together and can better achieve our mission to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world?
Nicely written, taking into account the history of our congregation. Thanks for your clear, concise thoughts.
The agonizing over the place of LGBTQ Christians in Methodism recalls my grad school days and a prof who mused: “when there is THAT much heat from a fire the fire isn’t just about the issue at hand.” In turn, I recall Kristin Luker’s Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood and Joseph Gusfield’s Symbolic Crusade: Status Politics and the American Temperance Movement. Just as these works pointed out opposing positions (reflecting deeply held clusters of values) that precluded acceptable compromise I wonder how far along the LGBTQ issue is on that path and whether it will be a (the?) vehicle for a permanent schism?