What If Staying or Going Weren't the Only Options?

by

Around 3:00 in the morning on Tuesday I awoke from another nightmare about the Church falling apart around me. And, on top of that, I found that I had a song from The Clash stuck in my head.

“Should I stay or should I go now?

"Should I stay or should I go now?

"If I go, there will be trouble

"And if I stay it will be double

"So come on and let me know

"Should I stay or should I go?”

If you didn’t just sing that in your head, we probably can’t be friends. But still, stick around because there is a broader point.

I must have been reflecting on comments from the Rev. Andy Bryan reflecting on the future of the church. Representing the fifth generation of the Bryan family to be elected to the General Conference, Andy (a supporter of the One Church plan) was asked whether he would be leaving the Church after this meeting. He responded that he would stay and continue to work to reform the Church.

While centrists and many progressives in the United Methodist Church have long maintained hopes of finding a middle ground that will allow the Church to stay together, it seems less and less possible to find a footing where this is possible. This became abundantly clear at the Special General Conference, where plans to “agree to disagree”  were only able to garner roughly 46% of the vote. In contrast the “traditionalist” plan which consolidates power in the Church on the conservative side of the political spectrum, and “gracious exit” plans garnered the support of roughly 53% of representatives.

Of course those “conservative” plans face further problems. Despite years to formulate and multiple attempts to revise, conservatives have not been able to find a formula for either the “traditional” plan or the “gracious exit” options that can pass constitutional muster in the Church. This means that they would need a super-majority to pass these plans.

In short, most centrists and progressives don’t want to leave, and if only given the option of an exit or continued fight many will stay and fight. Most conservatives want a clean conservative takeover of the Church which “allows” centrists and progressives to exit, or want the option of exiting themselves. But at this point no one can get what they want.

In short, the centrist plan needs at least 51% to pass, and the centrists don’t have the votes. Because it would require changing the constitution, the conservatives plans need at least 66% to pass, and the conservatives don’t have the votes.

So, neither side is powerful enough to resolve the stand-off in their favor, and neither wants to live under the conditions the other requires. But what if there were another option?

Up to this point, when thinking of schism, most have thought in terms of one side taking the Church and the other side taking a “gracious exit.” This makes sense, especially since we usually conceive of our conflict as a power struggle over THE Church. But what if we gave up on that way of thinking about the conflict. What if the options weren’t takeover or leave, bur rather taking up with one of two new Churches? The Open Methodist Church and The Conservative Methodist Church, or whatever …

If you could come up with a plan to create two new denominations, one conservative and one liberal, then it might be possible to pass the legislation for this plan with the support of enough conservatives and progressives to get a super-majority. This, it seems, is what is going to be necessary to come up with a realistic way out of the cul-de-sac we have entered. Of course, to do this, the plan would need to be EQUITABLE. You couldn’t have winners and losers. It could not be a plan that is perceived as a takeover plus gracious exit. It would require giving up on the competition to “win” the Church.

Coming up with such a plan would not be easy. It would not happen quickly. Like any negotiations to end a war, it would have to happen in a ceasefire. The implementation of the plan will inevitably cause further suffering, especially for the silent center of the Church. And, given the bar of 66% to pass, failure is always a possibility.

But what are the other options at this point? Despite having the majority, conservatives don’t have the means to enforce their vision of the Church. And even if they did, there are plenty of progressives who are perfectly willing to be ecclesial martyrs. And despite wanting to fight on to transform the Church, centrists and progressives only have the growth of African/conservative representation in the General Conference to look forward to. Would it not be better to have a Methodist Church that could affirm homosexuals now?

So, let there be two Methodist Churches. Two groups with rights to the Cross and Flames. Let us move past forcing the options of staying or going.

The Rev. Dr. Kevin Carnahan serves as Associate Professor of Philosophy and Religion, Central Methodist University Fayette, MO. This post is republished with permission from his blog, Eremitic Musings.