One Person’s Answer to the Question: 'We Won. Why Should We Leave?'

by

About six months ago, as I was starting to blog, I asked someone I respected for potential blog topics.  His answer was striking and proved prescient by recent events.  He suggested: “Write a blog that answers the question, ‘We won, why should we leave?’”  Since that time I’ve thought a lot about that question.  With the publication of the "Protocol of Reconciliation & Grace Through Separation" that question has moved to the forefront of the questions being asked by the segment of the church labeled as Traditionalists. That seems to be single most asked question following in the wake of the publicity concerning the Protocol. This week I think I finally arrived at the answer that satisfies me; whether my answer is true or satisfies others is for future events to decide. This opinion is strictly that, one person’s opinion. But it is an opinion arrived at after long reflection and a great deal of prayer.

It turns out that for Traditionalists the question is a trick question built on the false premise “we won.” Traditionalists were winning a battle but losing the war. It’s true that over the relatively short existence of the United Methodist Church the Traditionalist viewpoint has prevailed on the issue human sexuality. It’s also true that over the past 2,000 years the Traditionalist viewpoint has been considered true in the church.  However, the human sexuality issue turns out to have been a red herring in the United Methodist Church.  While Traditionalists were “winning” every vote over the past 50 years on the issue of human sexuality, they were slowly losing most everywhere else.

The Traditionalists’ position can be likened to a victory in siege warfare. Traditionalists have assumed that because the human sexuality walls have never been breached they are winning the “war”.  Those inside the walls will win every battle – until they lose one. I suspect that once the wall of human sexuality is breached, Traditionalists will be told the issue is now settled and the debate is over.  It’s the old game of keep voting until you win and then declare the issue settled forever.

While it is true that to date Traditionalists have repelled every attempt to breach the human sexuality wall, their opponents have had free roam over the remainder of the disputed landscape.  Objectively, one has only to look at the perspectives adopted and espoused in United Methodist-supported seminaries, boards, and agencies to realize that the Traditionalists  have been losing for the past 50 years. “Winning” on human sexuality has a been a Pyrrhic victory within the United Methodist institution.

The self-labeled “Centrists” in the United States have been slowly “winning” within the United Methodist Institution for the past 50 years, but their victories are equally Pyrrhic.  While they have won control over the levers of power within the institutional church, they have lost the ability to accomplish their stated mission: “The mission of the Church is to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.” BOD ¶120.  Objectively, if one looks at the declining membership in the United States, it can’t be reasonably argued that the church has effectively been making disciples of Jesus Christ in the United States. It seems the institutional church is now more interested in managing the decline and the existing assets than it is in making disciples.

The “Centrists” performed a public relations coup by self-labeling themselves as “Centrists.”  They appear to have chosen their label because they view themselves as the segment of the church that most closely mirrors contemporary United States culture. To me, it is peculiar indeed that someone would be honored to closely reflect a national culture that most people concede is drifting towards being post-Christian.  As I read the New Testament I don’t seem to find a lot of support for the nascent Christian Church to conform to the culture fostered by the Roman Empire.  Maybe I missed those passages.

Since the “Why should we leave?” question was first posed to me I have slowly come to the conclusion that the “Centrists” have won.  So the more accurate question is why should the “Centrists” leave?  The United Methodist Church is their institution; they shouldn’t be forced to leave. The Traditionalists have reached the conclusion that they have to leave because entrenched United Methodist institutions can’t be reformed.

Frankly, I have made no secret of the fact that I view myself as a Traditionalist.  So from my perspective, the real answer to why Traditionalists should leave lies in the fact that the various factions are locked in an institution that forces segments of the church to think in terms of winning and losing.  At a micro level everyone bemoans situations where local churches split over an issue.  Local churches split because factions decide winning is more important than grace.  We see that same mindset at the macro institutional level. The focus on winning and losing has diverted the church’s attention and mission. Jesus told the rich young ruler to sell everything and follow him; is that the answer to “Why should we leave?”

Some have argued that the major fault line in the United Methodist Church is not Traditionalist/Centrist; the major fault line is Laity/Ordained Clergy. I believe that position is correct. I suspect what keeps many Bishops awake at night is how to make appointments that successfully match the institutional church winners (a growing majority of ordained clergy) with the institutional church losers (the majority of members). It’s a delicate balancing act and when a Bishop gets it wrong there is major fallout.

From my perspective, the intended objective of the church’s many factions is to answer Christ’s call be a “city on the hill,”  the example for all the world to follow. For Traditionalists this is scriptural so it’s true.  For Centrists, this is part of the Gospel that appears to fall into the acceptable bucket for belief.  But I also sense that many within the various factions lack the ability to extend grace to those people they view as being at the bottom of the hill, i.e. those people who do not agree with them. It’s not enough to provide a Christian example that others could voluntarily emulate, should they so choose. Instead, they must be frog-marched up the chosen path to the city on the hill.  This is the new definition of "winning "within the church.

My Bishop sometime describes his task as holding things in tension.  I’ve been thinking a great deal about that topic and plan to write about some of the things that the church is constantly holding in tension.  My “tension” series will be posted over the coming months.

Finally, I have to admit that sometimes I am inclined to see irony where maybe I should be seeing tragedy.  Maybe the ability to see irony helps put tragedy into perspective.  My most recent sense of irony originated as I reflected on the number of times in the past few years I have heard church leaders invoke Isaiah 43:18-19: “18 Forget the former things; do not dwell on the past. 19 See, I am doing a new thing! Now it springs up; do you not perceive it? I am making a way in the wilderness and streams in the wasteland.”  It seems to me, the institutional leadership is now saying that the new thing that is springing up in the United Methodist Church is more of the old thing.  I may be the only one that sees that as irony.  Maybe not.

Pray for General Conference 2020.

United Methodist layman Frank Holbrook, a retired attorney in Martin, Tenn., will serve as a delegate to the 2020 General Conference from the Memphis Annual Conference. He is the author of the "Plain Grace" plan for dividing The United Methodist Church that will be considered at GC2020. This post is republished with permission from his blog, Plane Grace.