GC 2020 – Systematic thinking about separation: The may, should, can and how hierarchy

Frank Holbrook 1 GC 2020

Anyone following the numerous news articles and opinion pieces concerning possible separation within the United Methodist Church faces a daunting task. The floodgates are open and information and opinions are flowing fast.  As I considered the numerous pieces it occurred to me that having a systematic approach to mentally catalog the writings would be helpful.  This is a brief summary of my system; maybe it will help others.

I begin with a huge disclaimer.  I honestly believe that the Holy Spirit is, and will continue, moving within the church.  I also pray that all participants will faithfully seek God’s will through the process.  By outlining this system I’m not saying human logic and motives are the way to guide the process, but I do believe the Holy Spirit is motivating different people to look at the separation issue in different ways.  Part of the work of discernment is to listen to the myriad voices.

The four part system

As I’ve read and considered the issue it seems to me that there are four different issues being discussed and discerned.  First, is the theological issue: “May we separate and still be scripturally faithful?”  Second, if we may divide then a policy issue arises: “Should we divide?”  The third issue, i.e. the “can”issue, involves two related questions that may be referred to as the polity and political issues: “Under the Book of Discipline, and especially the Constitution, can we separate” is the polity question.  “Can enough votes be mustered at the General Conference to make separation occur?” is the political question.  Finally, there is the “how” question: “How will separation occur?”  This involves process questions.

May we divide and still be scripturally faithful?

The theological question is the most basic question.  If a person concludes that the answer to this question is “no” then that should be the end of their internal debate and discernment.

From my study and reflection I am of the opinion that the strongest scriptural basis for this conclusion is John 17:20-24:  “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.”  This prayer demonstrates both Jesus’ desire for unity among his believers and the purpose of that unity.

But it appears to me that if we are honest about the tenor of the New Testament, especially the NT Book of Acts and the Epistles, a great part of the corpus addresses the issue of how far the church can go to engage in cultural accommodation.  This issue also is apparent in the Gospels.  One needs only to consider the Council of Jerusalem to understand that the church has always struggled with how far it can accommodate local culture and still be faithful to God’s plan.  Although today we may describe the issue as contextualization or regionalization, cultural accommodation is one that is old as the church.

This is not an opinion or advocacy piece so I don’t intend to opine on the theologically correct outcome.  Nonetheless, this seems to be the basic starting point for any faithful analysis and for some it is also the ending point.

Should We Divide?

If one concludes that division is scripturally permissible then the policy question is considered.  Many articles make the policy argument, for various reasons, that the church’s mission is more effectively carried out if the United Methodist Church does not separate.  Others make countervailing arguments.

Similarly, some point out that since connectionalism is at the core of Wesley’s view of Methodism, if we separate are we losing our Wesleyan DNA?  This question also bleeds into questions three and four when people grapple with how much connectionalism to maintain if we do in fact separate.  Connectionalism also is implicated in the issue of ecclesiastical authority and accountability under the Book of Discipline.

As you can appreciate, the “should” is the question that is the subject of many articles and posts.  Clearly, it is an important point for each delegate to consider and one where many varied opinions exist.

Can We Divide?

The third question involves two sub-questions.  (1) Will we be legally able to divide under the current Book of Discipline, including the current or an amended Constitution. This also involves analysis and predictions about what the Judicial Council may say about the polity questions.  (2) Similarly, there are many articles and posts that involve counting noses and analyzing the thought processes of various geographic areas, interest groups and coalitions within the church.  This is the where insights offered by denominational insiders is extremely helpful.

How Should We Divide?

The final category of articles and posts address the issue of the actual separation process: How do we do it?.  If you read this blog regularly, you probably appreciate that I most of what I write addresses this issue.  I firmly believe that if separation occurs it should be grace filled.  Hopefully, if separation occurs it will result in renewal rather than decline.   Of course the “how” issue is intimately connected to the political “can” issue.  For example, the recent Liberian statement concerning the Protocol involves interlaced “can” and “how” issues; in essence Liberia is saying we can separate if these changes to the Protocol are made.   The “how” affects the political “can we” question.

Conclusion

I hope you find this brief outline helpful.  It helps me, but then I’m weird like that.  A humorist once observed: “You’re unique, just like everyone else”.  Maybe in this instance, you’re unique just like me.