The Other Schism in the UMC

by

UMC Future

Special to United Methodist Insight

Ever fond of analysis, many United Methodists see a spectrum of positions that runs from right to left: Traditional Incompatibilist; Traditional Compatibilist, Centrist, Progressive Compatibilist, Progressive Incompatibilist.

And ever fond of critique, many other United Methodists criticize this analysis: It is biased toward those in the middle; it does not reveal that many centrists are closeted progressives; etc.

The frustration with the conventional wisdom of a right-left spectrum is on target. Something is missing from this worldview.

Preservation—Reform Axis

There is another division that runs through this horizontal spectrum. It is the difference between preservation and reform. How much of United Methodism should be preserved and how much should be reformed? The degree to which one wants reform versus preservation runs like a vertical axis through the right-left continuum.

I say “United Methodism” because it is more comprehensive than “The United Methodist Church.” What is at stake includes the formal doctrines, polity, programs, and agencies of the denomination. How much of the denomination do you want to preserve or reform? But also, there is the ethos or culture of the denomination that has evolved over the past 50 years. The roles and relationships, the ways we evaluate success and failure, how we handle conflict, the labels we use, the power dynamics, and identity of the denomination is also at stake. How much of that culture do you want to preserve or reform?

The preservation-reform spectrum holds sway even for folks who want separation. Like family traits, “United Methodism” will be carried into new denominations whether explicitly acknowledged or not. For example, a new traditionalist denomination will preserve the doctrinal standards and traditional policies on sexuality.

Calls for the preservation of the denomination are often laced with radical changes. Centrists want to preserve the UMC by making a severe break with our current policies and by instituting a central conference for the United States.

Where you land on the reform-preservation spectrum influences your preference for the pace of reform. For example, a progressive bishop and annual conference may place greater value on the immediate preservation of the denomination than on immediate full inclusion. For some, the only effective reform is gradual; for others, gradualism is an avoidance tactic.

 What makes the conflict so frustrating is that we use the same rhetoric of reform, but we apply it in very different ways. For some, separation is a way to reform the culture while preserving the key features of United Methodism. Yet for others, separation is dissolution because it threatens the ethos of the denomination. One person’s reform is another person’s anarchy.

Yet, everyone talks about reform. Part of the culture of our denomination is flowery rhetoric—“Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors” and “Vital Signs” and “Called to Fruitfulness” and “missional” and so forth. Get beyond the rhetoric and look at the details of each proposal. How much of the current structure do you need to preserve for reforms to be productive? At what point do the preservation of those structures hamper real reforms?

Social Location

What is more revealing than one’s beliefs on sexuality is their social location in the denomination. Clergy have a different perspective than laity; bishops than pastors; agency staff than local pastors; a caucus leader than a GC delegate.

In addition to one’s formal role, other informal factors are influential, such as one’s reputation and the role they play for a caucus or conference, the degree of power they have, the financial support they receive. One’s past experiences of the denomination, good or bad, plays a major role in shaping one’s aspirations for the denomination. One’s perspective is nuanced by the way their social location is combined with their racial, national, and gender identity.

In other words, it is complicated. The culture of the denomination mitigates against hearing these nuances because we only know each other through innuendo and stereotypes. Understanding this other schism helps explain some of the strange alliances and unexpected decisions.

Preservation-Reform and The Indianapolis Plan

The Indianapolis Plan places a high priority on reform while preserving what is necessary to make reforms effective. All of us who developed the Plan share a common desire for extensive reforms—even though we disagree on the types of reform. We are not preservationists of a 47-year-old conflict.

 Our understandings of reform are grounded in our long and extensive experiences as local church pastors and lay leaders. The Plan was not written by bureaucrats and bishops. Because we are not at the center of power in the denomination, we can discern the difference between real reform and empty rhetoric.

All efforts at reform will suffer the same fate that has hampered past attempts if we continue as a single denomination. Sincere desires and good ideas will die in yet another commission created by General Conference. Our denominational culture of delusional rhetoric and bureaucratic self-preservation will abort those reforms before they can be born. A separation is needed to enact reforms while preserving the best elements of United Methodism in the new denominations.

The Plan creates a wider, better space for reforms. The new denominations will be able to innovate things such as the episcopacy and itinerancy in ways we will never be able to do as a single denomination. It will provide for the necessary preservation of key general agencies to continue to offer essential services that will undergird the denominations in their missional reforms.

Centrists who want real reforms of general agencies will have more power to do so through the Indianapolis Plan. They will have sole control over all the other agencies. Without the presence of traditional incompatibilists conducting their attacks, the general agencies will be able to move forward in constructive ways.

The reallocation of assets will not hurt the centrist’s reforms. Stewardship is not the same as preservation. Right now, the opposite is true. Fewer financial resources can force needed changes to work smarter, clear out ineffective leaders, and refocus the mission. Talk of reform is all well and good, but as long as there are enough financial resources to keep the system afloat, these reforms will always be delayed. Fighting over assets reveals our lack of faith in God’s grace as the foundation of the church and our idolatry of money.

The Rev. Darren Cushman Wood serves as senior pastor of North United Methodist Church in Indianapolis, Ind. He is one of the 12 original drafters of the Indianapolis Plan for Amicable Separation that will be considered by the 2020 General Conference.