Schism in United Methodism: Is the Ground Level for Open Debate?

by

Special to United Methodist Insight

It is no longer a secret that the Titanic, The United Methodist Church (UMC), over the years has been gradually but surely sinking, because of a plethora of problems facing this global denomination. Chief among these is the question of human sexuality, although the real problem seems to be deviation from what the Scripture teaches. This issue has rocked the UMC for decades with no lasting solution in sight. For some, nothing can be done to salvage the sinking ship and the imminent split is the only way to go.

On the other hand there are some who still believe that the damaged ship can be mended and continue sailing safely. Simply put, it means there are two opposing sides that are stuck together in conflict waiting for the sitting of the much-awaited General Conference (GC). All things being equal, as we wait for the GC; the denomination should be engaged, debating on the two possible outcomes, that is to split or to continue as one church but different from the current UMC. Given this scenario, the multi-million dollar question to ask is; is the ground level for such debate to take place across the denomination openly?

The school of thought that the global giant, over the years has been gradually sinking and nothing can be done to salvage it, is supported by the title of Lyle Schaller’s book; The Ice Cube Is Melting: What is Really at Risk in United Methodism? 2004. When an ice cube melts, it’s a slow process and even if the remains are re-frozen again, the product won’t be the same as it were at first. This title is a clear testimony that even if maximum effort is directed towards saving the UMC, the end product will not be the same, as we know it today. It will differ in many aspects, among them the supremacy of Scripture will be questioned, and it will emphasize more on tolerance than anything else. This is the plain truth; the UMC will never be the same come the much-awaited General Conference.

The events of the past couple of months and the communiqué by the Council of Bishops titled, “A Narrative for the Continuing United Methodist Church” makes us skeptical as to whether there is room for debate concerning the future of this global giant. The fact of the matter is that no one, absolutely no one can deny the fact that at the moment the UMC is a polarized denomination. Members have different views concerning the problems rocking the UMC. Every view should be given fair judgment; allowing members to debate their views openly without any prejudice. Like I agued in my article, “The Delay of the General Conference: A Blessing in Disguise for Africa,” the debate should be allowed to cascade to the local church level. This will enable every member to participate and make an informed decision when such a time is called for. Thus the debate about separation or continuing together must be of high priority at the very moment in the UMC.

The writing on the wall from the Council of Bishops is very clear, that their wish is to direct the denomination to the “One Church Plan”. One may not be far from the truth to assume that the majority of the bishops from the onset wanted the One Church Plan in 2019, but alas this was not to be as Traditional Plan carried the day. In their communiqué they wrote, “All our members, clergy, local churches, and annual conferences will continue to have a home in the future United Methodist Church, whether they consider themselves liberal, evangelical, progressive, traditionalist, middle of the road, conservative, centrist, or something else.” The “or something else” implies that the future UMC will remain open to embrace anything or any practice that comes along the way in the name of ‘tolerance’ and ‘the love of thy neighbor.’ This is the type of the church toward which our bishops are directing the flock.

One may also ague that by adding a qualifier to the name of the church, ‘future’ UMC implicitly the bishops are acknowledging that the current UMC will cease and a completely new UMC will emerge. This means that two or more denominations will emerge after the demise of the UMC, but one of the new denominations will retain the name UMC; that’s the one being referred to as the ‘future UMC. With all due respect, one may ague that the connotation, ‘Continuing UMC’ is not true. Rather it is a bait for luring members to that end, thinking that they will still be in the same church as they know it today.

It is interesting to note that what is taking place today is what Lyle Schaller predicted in his book; The Ice Cube Is Melting: What is Really at Risk in United Methodism? 2004. He predicted an amicable separation as one of the options on the way forward. He stated that, “The option of amicable separation is based on both sides agreeing that a separation needs to take place. This option can be precipitated by one or the other side, but to go forward, it needs the agreement of both sides in the debate” (2004:206). This prediction is represented by the Protocol of Reconciliation & Grace Through Separation (the protocol). Seemingly the protocol is gaining support from all the groups involved in the debate.

He further predicted that new denominations would emerge, among others:

  1. A new Methodist denomination closely resembling today’s UMC, without the Restrictive Rules and with a reworked annual conference and general agency structure.
  2. A new Methodist denomination retaining current UM doctrine, but with a new polity, organizational structure, and system of accountability (p. 206).

This is where we seem to be today. The first option being the new denomination, referred to as continuing UMC by the bishops and the second option being the new denomination formed by the traditionalists. This kind of scenario calls for debate within the denomination.

The Council of Bishops appealed for tolerance in its communiqué. But the question to ask is how tolerant are they as individuals in their respective episcopal areas? Events of the past months have shown that some bishops are not tolerant to members who are ginning support or have shown interest in the new Methodist denomination that retains the current UM doctrine, but with a new name. Some Pastors in the following annual conferences; California-Pacific, Greater New Jersey, and North Georgia, in the United States of America (USA) had their appointments changed impromptu without proper consultation as is the norm in the USA. They were transferred simply because they had shown interest to align themselves with the traditionalists and create the impending new Methodist denomination. It is difficult to understand that this happened in the USA, the land that boasts of being a champion in human rights.

More recently a Conference Lay Leader in the Zimbabwe East Annual Conference was booted out of office because of his alignment with the Wesleyan Covenant Association (WCA), an association that supported the Traditional Plan. The bishop openly said that he can no longer continue working with the lay leader because of their different views on the current debate. This is no secret because the session was streamed live on Facebook and anyone who logged in anywhere around the globe can bear witness to the bishop's action. One can ague that it may have been a way of sending a strong message to the congregants that if you dare go the opposite direction from the bishop, you will face the music.   

The examples cited above are a clear sign that the bishops, when they are in their areas of jurisdiction, are not as tolerant as they claim to be in their communiqué. Instead, they are using their positions to instill fear to both clergy and laity so as to dictate their position in the debate. In so doing they are extinguishing the spirit of debate that should be taking place in our congregations across the globe. This means that only one side of the story would be told in our conferences at the expense of the other. This denotes that the ground from which to debate from, is tilted towards continuing in the future UMC, which makes it very difficult and almost impossible for the dissenting voices to be heard. A situation that is very unfortunate in this modern world. 

The chain goes on. Obviously the bishop will whip his/her cabinet in line with what he/she wants in this debate, and no one would dare oppose the bishop, as they are his/her appointees. Many view being appointed into the cabinet as mercy or favor of the bishop. Therefore, whatever the bishop says is regarded as voot-stoets. In the same vein the District Superintendents will descend to their districts and if there is any clergy who may dare oppose their line of thought, well the answer is clear for all to see. The end result is that no debate would be allowed to take place. This is just to show how serious the action of the bishops will impact on the church, thwarting any possibility of healthy debating.

That being the case, another question that comes to mind is, why did the bishops decide to support one side of the debate? One of the things that quickly come to mind is fear of the unknown. It seems the bishops are uncertain about the future; henceforth continuing in the post separation UMC is the best option for them. In this way they feel their pensions and other benefits will be safe. Again, it is rumored that the denomination to be formed by the traditionalists may consider having terms for the episcopal office, something the bishops may not like at all as they enjoy life episcopal terms.

In conclusion, we have seen that the ground is not level at all for healthy debate to take place. It is my contention and appeal to the powers that be to make the ground level for debate to take place in our congregations. The members of the UMC must not be cowed to the future UMC without their say especially in matters that concern their spiritual belief and the supremacy of Scripture. Our members, clergy and laity should be given the platform to debate freely in the spirit of tolerance and love, leaving no room for any form of victimization and animosity towards one another. Let the debate begin in our congregations across the globe. Aluta Continua!

The Rev. Tendai Maxwell Nyagano is a clergy member of the Zimbabwe East Annual Conference.