Is the UMC Divided?
The United Methodist Church is sadly a divided and hurting Church. Even after votes, conferences, and proposals, it’s unable to find unity. However, this is a moment requiring great conviction, and a potential moment for a great revival.
Topics Addressed
Click questions to see answer.
Grant Caldwell: In this conversation, we discuss the preface and first chapter of "Are We Really Better Together?" by Rob Renfroe and Walter Fenton. Let's begin with something that jumped out to me from the very first words in this book. The reality is that we're a divided church, and the truth is we are a hurting church. Has that been your perspective as well?
Rev. Paul Lawler: Tenderly, yes, and there are many directions we could explore when we make statements like that. The United Methodist Church, many of our listeners know, was formed in 1968 with a merger between the Evangelical Brethren Church and the Methodist Church. She began, unknowingly for many United Methodists, as a theological experiment, and what was embraced in those early days was a so-called theological tenet known as theological pluralism.
Before I give a little definition, I want our listeners to know that it was no longer sanctioned at General Conference in the 1970s. But my point is that a part of the experiment was understanding theology through the lens of what we sometimes euphemistically refer to as a "big tent" where there's a tremendous amount of diversity of theology. It was an experiment, but it led instead to theological diversity under the lens of orthodoxy that would be traditional Christian teaching. It led to what many would call theological indifferentism, meaning that the Church and parts of the Church began to journey into areas that were not substantively supported by Scripture or the grand tradition of the expression of Christianity for 2,000 years.
So that created tension and hurt among a people called United Methodists. I realize there's more we'll drill into as we have our discussion, but yes, I would validate that.
So for those reading that might be like me and didn't grow up United Methodist, can you help us understand: Has this been something that's been a slow divide throughout history? Is this a more recent shift that's happened within the United Methodist Church?
I'm a cradle Methodist. My parents were raised and married in the United Methodist Church. My grandparents on both sides were Methodist. In fact, they were Methodist Episcopal and then United Methodist. So all I'm trying to communicate is that I'm invested.
I've shared this on Sunday mornings, but as a teenager and young adult, I gravitated between vague deism and agnosticism. Apart from what fueled that, I also sat under pastors who believed that the resurrection of Jesus Christ was a metaphor. That's even true among some of our progressive pastors today.
When I was a young adult, these pastors embraced more of what was referred to as classical liberalism from a theological perspective. Now, when you're a vague deist or agnostic, what's happening in your framework is, "Thank you very much. You've confirmed my doubts. Why do I need to give my life to Christ or the Church if, basically, we are dealing with myth?" This would be an example of what we would term theological indifferentism.
As we read 1 Corinthians 15, the Apostle Paul shares that belief in the literal resurrection of Christ is not optional. This is essential Christian doctrine. It's important that when we have these dialogues, we are Christians first before we're in a tribe, whether it's Presbyterian, Episcopalian, United Methodists, or another expression. This is what our root system, our originating pulses, are that empowers movement.
Sometimes you hear people say things like, "Well, as United Methodists, open minds, open doors." It sounds good, but we don't want to have open minds to the degree that our brains fall out. I know that's a cliche, and forgive me for spinning one there, but we cannot lose sight of the fact that things like the resurrection are essentials.
Now, this is in our United Methodist discipline, but theological pluralism set us up for theological indifferentism, where having a plethora of perspectives even around essentials has been enabled and even codified, not on paper but in practice.
So that's a part of what's led us. That root system has led us into this place where we find ourselves in crisis. Because now we're in a reality where, in many parts of the United States particularly, we practice by default what we might call theology by zip code. Let me illustrate it this way:
If I go to Wendy's in Memphis, Tennessee, and order a Wendy's single hamburger, I know what I'm going to get. If I go to Wendy's in South Dakota, Phoenix, Arizona, or Colorado, I know when I order a Wendy's single what I'm going to get. But if I go to a United Methodist Church in Memphis, Tennessee, I can go a few blocks down the road and experience something completely different. I can go across the country and experience something completely different.
We do not have consistency within our message that's rooted in the grand tradition because of what's been enabled over the years. When the Apostle Paul writes letters in the New Testament, he doesn't say, "Now, you churches at Galatia, you have a cultural context. Now, there are certain things in your cultural context that we want to just enable because of your cultural context."
What we find in the epistles, when Paul is helping to disciple these churches, we find a consistency between the message of Jesus and the overall message that's being emanated out of the heart of Paul. The Holy Spirit inspires him around the centrality of Jesus, the resurrection, the core tenets of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and Christian ethics. We see consistency.
When we are enabling a part of a movement, we find this consistency not only absent but enabled. This is why there's pain and hurt. We need to move into a new day.
Talking about Paul and the letters to the churches, I feel like you see in each one that there are core gospel essentials, and then how those core gospel essentials relate to the culture around them might change. That's what led Christianity to be a truly global church. But what makes Christianity unique is that there is this core gospel that's primary and then works its way out into a cultural landscape secondary.
That's so good.
It seems like this has been getting so much louder over the past few years. Specifically, within the United Methodist Church, there's been an increase in activity about this divide. For a new member here, could you just catch us up on what's really been going on in the last five to six years in the United Methodist Church?
First, let me say there are some good things happening in the United Methodist Church. I think it's important that I validate that. The bishop here in the Tennessee Western Kentucky Conference, our bishop here, Bishop McAlilly, upholds the doctrine of the United Methodist Church.
As I noted earlier in our conversation, in the United Methodist Church, you have theology by zip code, not only with local churches, but you have theology by zip code with annual conferences and jurisdictions or different regions of the country.
In 2019, the United Methodist Church met at a called General Conference, which was part of trying to settle this divide. The UMC spent millions of dollars to have this meeting in St. Louis. They adopted what's called the traditional plan. It was designed to strengthen the standards and accountability around the theology and doctrine of the United Methodist Church.
What's happened since 2019 is that we have persons who continue to defy the doctrine and constitution of the United Methodist Church. That's what's created denominational chaos.
The point is this is deeper than issues of human sexuality. This gets into the core theology of what is dividing us as United Methodist Church. Rob quotes that when a professor at one of our United Methodist seminaries teaches that other religious figures bring the same light to their followers as Jesus brings into the world, are we really together?
We're living in an hour where one of our approved United Methodist seminaries is actually training people to be Wicca priests. This is not faithfulness to who we are as a denomination. Part of the definition of the denomination is that you share a common belief and ecclesiology, as I noted earlier, that reflects a common doctrine. We have that on paper, but we don't have that in reality.
That concept can be very deceptive to listeners because sometimes you will hear United Methodist leaders go, "Well, if you looked at our discipline, it's all very orthodox in general," but that's really not the issue. The issue is that our doctrine and discipline are not only not enforced, but there are also those that blatantly violate it. This is not a problem only in certain churches on a local level but a problem in entire jurisdictions.
Personally, I keep hearing about this being framed just about human sexuality, and page eight of the book shows that this is an issue. But what you're talking about from pages 14 and 15, the divide is so much larger and deeper. To present it as being only about human sexuality is untrue.
Grant, that's an excellent assessment. I grieve that that's true, but that is true.
So there's a vote in 2019, the traditional plan passes, and you're sharing that we continue to go on when the bylaws are not being followed by these bishops. There's a powerful illustration on page 19 about a family that the authors give. Is this an accurate illustration of what's happening?
It is. I think what Rob does is he shares the analogy in a marriage you pronounced or affirmed vows before God and one another that you were going to be faithful to one another. A spouse then suddenly says, "I'm not going to be faithful to my vows any longer, and I'm going to sleep around. Is that okay with you?"
In the United Methodist Church, when bishops lay hands on us, we take a vow to uphold the doctrinal standards of the Church and to be faithful in covenant with one another. When we observe that there are large segments of the Church that are living in disobedience to our ordination, it's not only very discouraging, but it doesn't bode well for the integrity of who we are as the Church.
For the listener that's hearing about denominational divides and bishops, how does this work its way down to the membership of the local church? What's your encouragement to stay engaged with this topic over the next few weeks?
I want to remind everyone we're products of the Reformation. In the 15th century, Martin Luther made a stand out of his convictions when the Church as an institution began to drift from the clear revelation of Scripture. But that also has affected us because John Wesley was a product of the fruit of inheriting the theology of the effects of the Reformation.
But the reason I bring this up is that watching cycles of the Church go through reform and renewal is a part of the life of the Church. I'm talking about the capital C Church, not the Roman Catholic Church, but the Catholic Church that we affirm every Sunday when most of us recite the Apostle's Creed.
The reason that's important for the listener to be mindful of is that historically, we are encountering an era that is unique, but we're also encountering a dynamic that is not unique. Unique in the sense that it's being framed around human sexuality and core doctrine as it should be, but not unique in the context that historically, the Church is always having to undergo some type of reform.
The question is, in every era, there need to be those Christians who will stand on conviction, who are willing to take a stand, and even willing to suffer for taking a stand. Christianity in Western culture has enjoyed 300 years of an anomaly, meaning you've been able to be Christians and not face what the majority of Christians for the last 2,000 years have had to navigate, which is persecution for standing up for Christ and the revelation that comes through Scripture.
So I think it's important for the reader to understand as we navigate this season and the life of the Church, historically, this is not unusual. But it's also an hour where I believe it's essential that we stand. We stand in truth and grace and love, but we stand convictionally.
I wanted to end by looking at those final few paragraphs on pages 20 and 21. I felt they were so full of grace and that the best way we can truly love others going forward is a divide. Do you feel that way as well?
I really do, and this has layers. So if I may, let me take a moment.
The first layer is the Church has a responsibility to love all people and do so no matter what they're struggling with. That's a given. We have a responsibility to love.
But at the same time, the Church does have what I would call an inside and an outside. Here's what I'm driving at. That always sounds so radical to people, but it's been true for 2,000 years. It was true in the Old Testament, too, that there are those that are the people of God. In the New Testament, it was articulated, I believe, by John, as many as receive Jesus Christ to those God gave the power to become children of God.
We recognize in Paul's writings that that's the ekklesia, which is the New Testament word for Church, called out ones. As the called-out ones, we are different. That's what the Scripture describes. It doesn't mean that a Christian doesn't struggle with sin as they're growing in their sanctification, but we recognize that as Christians, we are not committed to giving ourselves to sin.
The reason I'm sharing that is that when you've come into Christ, and you're birthed into His Church, we have a responsibility to love everybody. Period. I would submit that we're in an hour where, for the sake of the health of the Church, we need to be peacemakers, not peacekeepers.
A peacemaker is a person that Jesus says, "My blessing rest upon." Peacemaking means I will help bring matters to a head, and in this case, it means we need to separate and bless one another. We need to nurture things to come to a head so that we have a true peace.
A peacekeeper will enable a false peace. In other words, we know we're not united, we know we're not operating under one ecclesiology, and we know we're using the same vocabulary but different dictionaries. When we recognize that we're not in unity, that's peacekeeping.
There is a time when it's wise not to enable the ongoing reality of spending millions of dollars that have come through tithes and offerings for an ongoing fight that has been going on for 40-something years. We need to bring this to a head and move forward and bless each other in the process.
And by blessing each other, there's this inherent understanding of not being against each other, not wanting to burn the house down on the way out from each other.
Well said.
There's a true acknowledgment that we see this differently. We may not be convinced, they may not be convinced, and so the truest best way is to split, which is the argument of this book.
I want to go on record. The last thing that we want to do is burn the house down in the United Methodist Church on the way out. There may be those around me that would affirm a more progressive view of Christianity, but I love them. I don't wish anyone harm, and I don't agree in terms of their vision for the future of the Church. But I do love them, and I wish them well and blessing.
Any final thoughts from the preface or first chapter?
A lot of people in the pew wonder, "What does this have to do with me?" I understand that question, and I wonder if, in Luther's time, the same question was asked when Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door about the need for a division.
But what I would ask the listener to do is to process, what if Martin Luther had not stood in that hour of history and realized that the Church in that era was not teaching that you were made right with God through the blood atonement of Jesus Christ on the cross?
I would ask the listener to take a moment and process what that would mean for millions, if not billions, of people when the Church is not faithfully stewarding the message of the cross.
What I would invite the listener to consider is that we're in an hour that affects the generations to abandon parts of the Church and to enable an ecclesiology where we are ignoring the order of the Church. We are enabling in places the teaching that does not align with Scripture and teaching that does not align with who we are as Methodists.
I would say, reader, let's think about our children and our grandchildren and the legacy to come. Let's not merely think about us, but let's think about the generations.
I am one of those that are passionate about the potential of revival and renewal. I am aware this gets a little deep, but you cannot have revival and renewal, and our nation needs it right now desperately, apart from a move of the Holy Spirit. If you're in a movement that's grieving the Holy Spirit because of her sin, revival and spiritual awakening become implausible in that context.
