What If UMC Identity Document Can Prevent Schism?

“The stronger and more numerous our representations, the more we can draw on them to connect ideas, develop intuitions and solve problems.” – Junaid Mubeen, an Oxford mathematician turned educator

A United Methodist Insight Interpretative Analysis

A concept that’s germinating among the worldwide denomination’s scholars and leaders may hold out hope that The United Methodist Church can develop “stronger and more numerous representations” to stay connected and solve the problem of potential schism. What’s more intriguing, the idea is coming from a group whose work usually gets noticed only by “Methonerds”* – the Committee on Faith and Order.

The idea relates to a theological statement in process called “Wonder, Love and Praise: Sharing a Vision of the Church.” The Rev. Dr. Charles M. Wood, professor emeritus of Christian doctrine from Perkins School of Theology, led the Council of Bishops May 1 in an exploration of the document that some hope will help save United Methodism from exploding over the polarized conflict about homosexuality. Dr. Wood consults with the Committee on Faith and Order, which is chaired by Bishop Scott J. Jones of Houston.

As a potential mechanism for United Methodist unity as well as church identity, “Wonder, Love and Praise” focuses on how to create a Christian denomination of Wesleyan heritage that can serve a world of human diversity. While its theology likely will interest scholars, clergy and “Methonerds,” rank-and-file United Methodists might identify more with practicalities: a two-part process for how the church makes decisions about its policies and practices.

Making decisions at the lowest level

Key to this approach is a concept that Dr. Wood termed “subsidiarity.” More plainly put, “subsidiarity” means that each church unit – Central Conference, Jurisdictional Conference, Annual Conference or local congregation – would be empowered to decide what non-essential policies and practices work best in its respective context. It’s analogous to a business theory popular in the late 1990s and early 2000s that gave employees the power to analyze their work processes and make decisions on how to improve their performance.

If this idea sounds familiar, it ought to. “Subsidiarity” resembles changes in United Methodist structure and authority proposed two years ago by the Revs. Adam Hamilton and Mike Slaughter. Hamilton and Slaughter named their proposal “A Way Forward for The United Methodist Church,” from which the current Commission on A Way Forward drew its name. In fact, subsidiarity’s essence can be traced all the way back to Methodism’s founder, John Wesley, who famously said: "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity." (United Methodist Book of Discipline, Section 2, Our Doctrinal Heritage).

Dr. Wood, several United Methodist bishops, Faith and Order committee members and some Way Forward commissioners are exploring subsidiarity as a key to keep the denomination together despite diametrically opposed views on the acceptance of homosexuality. They’re examining the concept closely, even though the Hamilton-Slaughter proposal that sparked church-wide conversations went down in flames at the 2016 General Conference.

Nonetheless, the idea keeps reasserting itself in other current church developments, such as the effort to create a new global Book of Discipline focused on universally held Christian and Wesleyan tenets, leaving specifics to be ironed out by various regional church units. “Loosening the connection,” a prominent phrase from the most recent meeting of the Way Forward group, also reflects subsidiarity, as does the quest for a set of United Methodist Social Principles that is worldwide in scope, not USA-centric, and adaptable to local needs.

A fraternal twin

However, Dr. Wood and other scholars aren’t proposing lowest-level decision-making on its own. Low-level decision-making gets paired with a “conciliatory” process of “reception.” This fraternal twin of subsidiarity reflects the influence of a World Council of Churches document, “The Church: Towards a Common Vision,” published in 2013. As Dr. Wood described it May 1 for the Council of Bishops, policies originating at the global level would not become “embodied” throughout the church until they had been through a process to:

  • Understand the decision,
  • Test its rationale,
  • Explore the consequences of the decision, and
  • Adapt the decision regionally.

Scholars and bishops alike hope these combined tools will move The United Methodist Church from its current irreconcilable polarization to a church identity that embraces unity without requiring uniformity that proves unworkable in many regions.

“Christian unity isn’t destroyed just because some policies don’t ring true for some parts of the church,” Dr. Wood said. “That’s what subsidiarity means.

“Likewise, reception means that decisions only become valid as they are received and embodied throughout the church,” he continued. “Conciliation doesn’t mean simply falling in line with what the ‘council’ has decided. It’s not ‘obey’ versus ‘disobey’ as the Discipline currently provides.”

The question of church identity that’s being explored in “Wonder, Love and Praise” centers on what form of United Methodist polity – that is, structure and practice – would enable use of subsidiarity and conciliar reception to create unity, Dr. Wood said.

“In other words, to what extent do current practices encourage conciliation?” he asked.

Bishops’ affirmation

During a question-and-answer session after his May 1 presentation, Dr. Wood noted that politically, subsidiarity is being used worldwide to check the power of centralized governments. “It means allowing local communities to decide as much as they can, and empowering them to do so,” the scholar said in response to a question from Bishop Patrick Streiff of Germany.

While few bishops had specific questions about the document, two bishops affirmed the value of the discernment process.

Bishop Hope Morgan Ward commented that the North Carolina Annual Conference currently uses a form of conciliar process in its discussions about human sexuality. “We changed the name from ‘dialogue,’ which implies an either/or result, to ‘conversation,’ and it all but eliminated polarization,” said Bishop Ward. “By changing to conversations, we understood there are more than two ways to look at complexities.”

Bishop Ken Carter of Florida, one of three bishops serving as moderators for the Committee on A Way Forward, said he sees subsidiarity and reception as tools “to build a connectionalism in service of mission.”

But what about the politics?

The formula may look good on paper, but one of its two legs – moving decisions to the lowest effective level – has already been broken by the powerhouse of United Methodist politics, which, as longtime church observers know, seems more like a barroom brawl than a genteel consultation.

Dr. Wood agreed that the task of getting contentious humans to embrace the higher calling of consultation and discernment rather than winner-take-all politics poses a great challenge for The United Methodist Church.

“The Church is both a divine gift from God and a human reality,” Dr. Wood said. “We make use of the Church in all sorts of ways. We have to ask ourselves honestly: What idols are we worshiping under the name of Jesus Christ? And how will those uses stand up to God’s judgment that Jesus described in Matthew 25?”

The Committee on Faith and Order hopes to get at least 10 percent of The United Methodist Church’s 12 million worldwide members to study “Wonder, Love and Praise” during 2017 and give feedback on the document.

The draft and guide for small group study, along with a feedback form, are available online in English, French, Portuguese and Kiswahili.

*”Methonerds” is an affectionate nickname used by bloggers for United Methodist clergy and laypeople who delight in the detailed study of all things Wesleyan.

Cynthia B. Astle serves as Editor and Founder of United Methodist Insight.