Three views on splitting

Rev. Jeremy Smith is a pastor in the United Methodist Church. He writes the blog Hacking Christianity and has had several posts leading up to and after the February General Conference. Smith has posted two essays by guest writers, one urging a split and another discussing the harsh consequences of a split. Smith wrote a third – how progressives can stay and fight.

On the split side is O. Wesley Allen, Jr. of the Perkins School of Theology at Southern Methodist University. He lays out his reasons why a split is both inevitable and necessary. Some of his reasons:

Neither side can win this battle. Because of the way the denomination is shrinking in America and growing elsewhere in the world progressives will never have enough votes to change the denomination’s stance on homosexuality. But conservatives don’t have enough votes to change the denomination’s constitution to get the kinds of accountability and penalties they want. They can’t force the Western Jurisdiction to get rid of a lesbian bishop, stop the ordination of gay clergy, or punish clergy who preside over same-sex weddings. We’re at a stalemate with each side demonizing the other and moderates trying to distance themselves from both the left and right.

There is a theological divide. Allen says there are three relationships that need healing – between human and God, between one human and another, and between a human and himself or herself.

Conservatives emphasize the human – God relationship and see personal purity and obedience to God as most important. Being LGBT is seen as a moral failing, violating both personal purity and obedience to God.

Progressives emphasize the human – human relationship and see it as an expression of the human – God relationship. They see this as the foundation of social ethics. We are to be just, inclusive, and loving of all people. Being LGBT is as natural and of God as being straight. So they consider the ethics of same-sex relations in the same way they look at straight relations.

Allen says these two views of LGBT people are irreconcilable. We must split.

Allen suggests we shouldn’t look at this as a divorce. This is more like siblings dealing with the death of a parent. Even while in grief and while not getting along there are tasks to complete, such as how to divide up the inheritance and how to live when the parent is no longer there.

Most of the 61 comments agree with Allen. David brought up an important point – what will a split do to a local congregation? There are related questions: What happens when the only Methodist church in town takes the direction you don’t like? What happens when a congregation is divided?

Rev. Rebecca L. Holland reminds us of what we lose if we split. In her view we would lose too much.

We might lose the guaranteed appointment system. All elders (ordained pastors) will be assigned to a church, no matter their gender, skin color, or abilities. This appointment system means a bishop can make cross-racial and cross-cultural appointments, which fosters diversity. This system protects women, people of color, and people with disabilities. Holland is all three.

A split could cause her to lose vital health insurance. It is especially vital to her because of her disability. She wonders if a Progressive Methodist Church would offer health insurance. I wonder of a Progressive Methodist Church would have enough institutional resources to provide heath insurance.

Holland got through seminary through extensive aid. Would a smaller denomination be able to afford supporting seminarians, especially those of minority groups? We could lose the diversity of our new pastors.

A split could damage global missions. One example is UMCOR, the United Methodist Committee on Relief, which often gets to disaster scenes before the Red Cross. One can donate by designating a bit extra in their offering. A few years ago United Methodists donated significantly to reduce malaria and the work brought more than a 50% reduction in malaria deaths. A church that isn’t global and connected as ours is wouldn’t have been as effective.

There were a dozen comments to Holland’s post. Sarah wrote the first:

These issues are why we should make the split happen in a conscious, intentional way rather than smaller groups splitting off here and there. The splitting is happening [and] the question before us is how to do it well.

Mike’s comment started with a quote from James Baldwin, which sums up my feelings of Holland’s post:

We can disagree and still love each other unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist.

Yes, diversity in appointments, health insurance, and UMCOR are all vital issues But LGBT people are the targets of institutional violence. If there is no split we’re the ones who will bear the damage and would want a realistic plan for ending the damage.

In Smith’s essay he suggests we can all stay in the same denomination and, like seat belts reduce the harm of fatalities in auto accidents, we progressives can reduce the harm of the Traditionalist Plan. In the same manner that the Western Jurisdiction has said they will ignore the Traditionalist Plan, the North Central and Northeastern Jurisdictions can do the same. This would require the bishops in those areas to issue written commitments that they would not enforce the Plan.

Since neither side has the 2/3 majority to change the denomination constitution the South Central and Southeastern Jurisdictions won’t be able to meddle in the ways the Western Jurisdiction defies the Traditionalist Plan. In this way progressives can keep church unity – or prompt conservatives to leave.

Smith admits a big problem with this idea – there would be no harm reduction for LGBT people in the South Central and Southeastern Jurisdictions.

Smith says this mass Biblical Obedience (a better name for Book of Discipline disobedience) depends on a question: Is preserving the current United Methodist denomination worth it? Is a split worth risking the hospitals, seminaries, and 35,000 churches? Is it worth risking the highly effective United Methodist Women, the ethnic ministry, the joint effort we can accomplish with our apportionments (what the local congregation gives to the national and global church), our ordination of women, and the 47% that see a shared future with LGBT people?

Commenters shared three main responses: (1) We need to resolve the issue, not keep battling. Both sides no longer want a church with the other side in it. The only resolution is a split. (2) I don’t have the energy for such a prolonged fight. (3) LGBT youth still see their worth still up for debate.