LET THE BRANCHING CONTINUE: Several Ways Forward for US Methodists

As I've said before,  I am not alarmed by the prospect that the United Methodist Church will split. Parting ways with pew partners is a very Protestant -- and, although we might not  like to admit it, a  very Methodist -- thing to do. 

The early Methodist movement was not monolithic, and of course Methodism in America was born by splitting from the Church of England. As far as loyal Anglicans were concerned, John Wesley lamented schism so loudly and roundly because he he was constantly promoting it. In their view,  the good  Reverend protested too much. Or as Ryan Nicholas Danker has has put it, Wesley's self-identification with the high church "was reciprocated by a continuing flood of obloquy from actual high churchmen."

Methodism in America, meanwhile, has seen an abundance of splits.  Only the hubris of the mainline leads United Methodists to judge all these splits unfavorably. Who's to say that African Methodist Episcopalians, or Wesleyans, or Nazarenes, or Free Methodists, or even Pentecostals aren't the true Wesleyan "traditionalists."  And who's to say that "traditionalism" is always and everywhere the right thing for "true Wesleyans" to embrace?

Whatever form the coming split may take, it appears all but inevitable that it will also include a process of "sorting," by which local churches are afforded some opportunity to choose with which branch to affiliate.  And my guess is that this sorting will find expressions - and deliver outcomes - that are not as predictable as you might think. 

As reported recently by leaders of the movement from within the Michigan Annual Conference, the Wesleyan Covenant Association is prepared to launch "as soon as next summer" a "new expression of Methodism" that would include: 

• "A streamlined structure, eliminating most general boards and agencies and limiting apportionments to no more than 7% of a local church budget. (Currently the denominational average is 14%).

• A term-limited office of bishop with a redefined role focused on teaching doctrine and inspiring mission.

• A modified call system for deploying pastors. Congregations would actively engage in the recruiting, hiring and termination of pastoral leadership. There would be no guaranteed appointments.

• The elimination of the trust clause.

• An emphasis on church planting, evangelism and congregational vitality.

• Consistent and cohesive doctrinal teaching across the denomination.

• A global church in partnership with the rapidly growing branches overseas ..."

I can think of many non-traditionalist churches that would embrace enthusiastically one or more parts of this agenda, which begs the question of whether churches always and everywhere will sort themselves based on their views of human sexuality.  What may happen, instead, is that as  some churches (especially "moderate" or "middle-of-the-road" or "don't ask / don't tell" churches) debate which branch to choose, considerations OTHER THAN HUMAN SEXUALITY will come to the fore.   And in response the leaders of each new branch may be forced to revise their polity in order to "compete" for local churches.

The challenges posed to would-be leaders of new "progressive" or "moderate" branches of U.S. Methodism are real.  Are they committed to the antiquated, industrial-era model around which the current United Methodist Church is organized?  Will they tell local churches that the price for self-selecting into a branch other than the traditionalist branch is a continuing commitment to distant bureaucracy, to unaccountable bishops and to an entirely non-transparent appointment process?  And if this the price, will local churches simply line up and agree to pay it?

My guess is that the answer to this question is "no," and that in the coming years we will see the transformation of EVERY branch of Methodism.  These  branches will differ in their views of human sexuality, and in their understanding of biblical authority and "essential" doctrine.  But my guess is that each of the new branches will be leaner in denominational budget and superstructure, more transparent in matters of leadership and appointment-making, and less hierarchical (more democratic) in decision-making.  And to my mind, this is all to the good.

I understand that with splitting comes pain and separation.  And if we conceive of the Church as a body, the idea of a split seems calamitous.  But there is another biblical metaphor for the church - the metaphor of a vine that is pruned as it grows, and that sprouts new branches continually. In the gospel of John, Jesus says: 

“I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes[a] so that it will be even more fruitful. ... I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing." (JOHN 15:1-2, 5) 

In this  frame, "branching" is a natural, indeed inevitable, part of life.  And, as is the case in nature, the branches are usually smaller and leaner to begin with, something that makes possible new opportunities for growth.

So this is why I am not alarmed at the prospect that the United Methodist Church will split.  When it comes to splitting, I am prepared to declare, "Let the branching continue!'