Should the UMC Schism Happen?

[The Liturgist]

Well done, The Liturgist. I have always fashioned myself to have a quite broad vocabulary, but you have just increased it by one word, sending me off to a google definition search. Probably too long, though, to be of any help to me in Scrabble. Still, I'm one word smarter.

Amusingly the last time I recall someone thanking me for introducing them to a new word, the word in question was “intransigence,” which I would characterize as being at least comfortably synonymous with contumacy. The English language has through accretion acquired a splendid cornucopia of words which can be used to refer to diverse forms of disobedience with high precision.

 

[Xarto]

For those of you who don’t know, leaders in the UMC have been planning a schism as a way around the traditionalist coalition of nearly all African, and a plurality American parishes that adhere to Biblical Christian doctrine on human sexuality,

Under the proposal a new traditional church would be separated from the UMC and given $25 million.

As a Catholic it is sad to see this breakup of the UMC but I wonder what is to stop it happening again? What's to stop future liberal "fifth columnists" from infiltrating the new conservative branch and the whole process starting again at some future date? Divide and conquer as the British like to say.

 

[The Liturgist]

As a Catholic it is sad to see this breakup of the UMC but I wonder what is to stop it happening again? What's to stop future liberal "fifth columnists" from infiltrating the new conservative branch and the whole process starting again at some future date? Divide and conquer as the British like to say.

This is another reason why I feel the African and conservative leaders in the UMC should not countenance a schism. Instead, they should adopt the same approach historically used by every church, which is to depose the clergy and take back control of wayward parishes. The Episcopal Church did that, and even the UMC has done it in the past (a liberal bishop sold the church building of a parish in Alaska, St. Paul’s UMC, when that parish refused to accept an extremely liberal minister she wanted to serve there).

 

[hedrick]

As a Catholic it is sad to see this breakup of the UMC but I wonder what is to stop it happening again? What's to stop future liberal "fifth columnists" from infiltrating the new conservative branch and the whole process starting again at some future date? Divide and conquer as the British like to say.

That hasn't happened in any other mainline denomination. Why would people want to infiltrate a conservative group?

There's no "again." The UMC has been a liberal church consistently. In other mainline denominations people who weren't willing to go along left. The UMC's odd governance gave non-US people an option of trying to turn the American church conservative.

 

[The Liturgist]

There's no "again." The UMC has been a liberal church consistently.

That’s entirely false. The United Methodist Church is a predominantly conservative and African church with a minority of disobedient provinces conferences in North America, each of which nonetheless has a substantial conservative contingent. The UMC is also the most conservative of the mainline churches.

Frankly I wish I had worked for them vs. the UCC.

 

[Xarto]

That hasn't happened in any other mainline denomination. Why would people want to infiltrate a conservative group?

There's no "again." The UMC has been a liberal church consistently. In other mainline denominations people who weren't willing to go along left. The UMC's odd governance gave non-US people an option of trying to turn the American church conservative.

Ah I didn't realise they were always liberal.

 

[Xarto]

This is another reason why I feel the African and conservative leaders in the UMC should not countenance a schism. Instead, they should adopt the same approach historically used by every church, which is to depose the clergy and take back control of wayward parishes. The Episcopal Church did that, and even the UMC has done it in the past (a liberal bishop sold the church building of a parish in Alaska, St. Paul’s UMC, when that parish refused to accept an extremely liberal minister she wanted to serve there).

I agree but seems a lost cause if the majority choose the liberal side (or as @hedrick pointed out they were always liberal).

 

[hedrick]

Ah I didn't realise they were always liberal.

Yes. Social action was a priority, from Wesley's time. It's one of the few denominations I know to have a "social creed": Social Creed (Methodist) - Wikipedia. That article has the text of a version from 1908. It was quite liberal for its time. Look for example at their record on ordination of women: Timeline of Women in Methodism | The United Methodist Church. I can't quickly find the history of votes on homosexuality. But in the last few years at least, the UMC in the US would have accepted gays. It was overruled because of votes from outside the US.

The Methodist Church was very successful in bringing the Gospel to other countries, particularly in Africa. Unlike most denomination, the churches in other countries have a vote in the general meeting. Other countries have their own local groups, which can override general provisions of the Discipline, tailoring them for local use. The US, however, doesn't have that. So the international meeting sets policy for the US as well as internationally. When mission churches were smaller than the US body, it looked quite good to let them have a full vote. However as the non-US churches have come to outnumber the US, it has left the US in a situation rather like the US Catholic Church: more liberal than the rest of the world, but forced to take official positions that the majority in the US don't agree with.

 

[Albion]

Ah I didn't realise they were always liberal.

Well, of course they weren't.

But it depends on what we mean by "liberal." These mainline churches that have become "all things to all people" in recent years did not routinely deny essential doctrines of the Christian religion a half-century or so ago, even if they were encouraging the civil rights movement and allowing divorced persons to be members, etc.

 

[hedrick]

Well, of course they weren't.

But it depends on what we mean by "liberal." These mainline churches that have become "all things to all people" in recent years did not routinely deny essential doctrines of the Christian religion a half-century or so ago.

Huh? The battle over fundamentalism was fought in the early 20th Cent. The mainline denominations have been "liberal" since then. The specific issue of homosexuality is relatively new, but the approach that leads to accepting the possibility of Christian homosexuals has been there for at least 100 years.

 

[Albion]

Huh? The battle over fundamentalism was fought in the early 20th Cent. The mainline denominations have been "liberal" since then.

But as I understand your point, they were liberal BY COMPARISON TO the fundamentalists. That isn't the definition of theological liberalism.

It's undeniable that the mainline Protestant churches have moved steadily in the liberal direction from the early 20th century to the present. Today, all sorts of denials of historic doctrines and the acceptance of all manner of strange worship practices are common among these churches but would NOT have been typical even a couple of generations ago. Then, it accelerated, and that is when the traditionalists in denomination after denomination began to leave.

 

[The Liturgist]

Ah I didn't realise they were always liberal.

They weren’t. My best friend Richard grew up in a UMC church, and because of him I have spent a lot of time involved in UMC events, and I nearly went to work for the UMC* (which would probably have been a better fit for me, but I had misguided romantic notions about Congregationalist churches and the history they played in the early United States; I also made the error of thinking the UCC was the only remnant of the old Congregationalist church, when there are two other Congregational groups including the CCCC where I would have been happier). Richard has described to me the politics of the UMC over the years, and the liberalism in the US, which does not extend to all districts or parishes, by a long shot, and which is also almost entirely absent from the various UMC conferences in Africa and other former mission fields. This is because the UMC, rather than creating independent provinces in Africa like the Anglicans and Episcopalians, instead integrated the African churches into its existing hierarchy, but if the UMC in Africa was a separate church, it would be one of the largest in the world in terms of membership, larger than the UMC.

*In other words, obtaining an MDiv from a Methodist divinity school or one more broadly recognized in the UMC and then seeking ordination from them, vs. where I went. But its too late now...

 

[The Liturgist]

But as I understand your point, they were liberal BY COMPARISON TO the fundamentalists. That isn't the definition of theological liberalism.

It's undeniable that the mainline Protestant churches have moved steadily in the liberal direction from the early 20th century to the present. Today, all sorts of denials of historic doctrines and the acceptance of all manner of strange worship practices are common among these churches but would NOT have been typical even a couple of generations ago. Then, it accelerated, and that is when the traditionalists in denomination after denomination began to leave.

You are entirely right on this point. The only denomination that might have been considered very liberal in the 1960s or 70s was the UCC, but even then, there were lots of relatively conservative congregations. Since that time, all of the mainline churches moved in a more liberal direction, except for the SBC and LCMS (which people now tend to deny are “mainline” churches, but in terms of membership and geographic size, the LCMS, SBC, WELS, PCA, and OPC are as large, or in the case of the SBC, larger, than any of the liberal mainline churches).

 

[PloverWing]

Since that time, all of the mainline churches moved in a more liberal direction, except for the SBC and LCMS (which people now tend to deny are “mainline” churches, but in terms of membership and geographic size, the LCMS, SBC, WELS, PCA, and OPC are as large, or in the case of the SBC, larger, than any of the liberal mainline churches).

As I've heard the term used, "mainline" doesn't refer to the size of the church, but rather refers to where the churches were in the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy of the 20th century. The LCMS and SBC are large and influential, but they're on the conservative side, so for that reason I wouldn't categorize them as mainline.

 

[Albion]

I guess this depends on how the particular speaker want to use the word (mainline). Most often, I think, it is used to refer to the older and larger of the Protestant churches--Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, etc.

But as almost all of them are known to be liberal, and there has been a lot of publicity given to the doctrinal struggles involving them, some writers seem to have begun to use the word as a handy reference to liberal Protestantism.

 

[The Liturgist]

As I've heard the term used, "mainline" doesn't refer to the size of the church, but rather refers to where the churches were in the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy of the 20th century. The LCMS and SBC are large and influential, but they're on the conservative side, so for that reason I wouldn't categorize them as mainline.

The LCMS is very far from being fundamentalist however; most LCMS parishes are traditional high church liturgical parishes with beautiful worship that is similar in elegance and grace to the traditional Latin Mass in the Roman Catholic Church, the Divine Liturgy of the Eastern, Oriental and Assyrian churches, traditional Anglican services using the 1928 American BCP, or Rite 1 of the 1979 BCP. @MarkRohfrietsch and a Lutheran friend who is a member of a liturgical project I am working on linked me to some really beautiful LCMS services on YouTube.

 

[PloverWing]

I assume we agree on the actual facts about the denominations -- some are more conservative than others, some are larger than others, and the theological family trees of the denominations is a matter of historical record. It's the terminology of "mainline", "fundamentalist", and maybe "modernist" that's under discussion.

"Fundamentalist" and "modernist" were at one time used to describe the conservative and liberal sides in the 20th century controversies. I haven't heard the word "modernist" used in ages, except as a historical reference, so I think that word is slipping out of usage. "Fundamentalist" used to mean "holding to the fundamentals of the faith", but it has drifted in meaning so that it's now mostly a perjorative, and it's also ceasing to be a useful theological term.

The terms I hear more frequently now are "conservative", "inerrantist", or "evangelical" for the denominations that maintain the inerrancy of the Bible, and "mainline" or "progressive" or "liberal" for those that do not.

The LCMS are not Fundamentalist, in the modern usage of the word. I am aware of the beauty of LCMS liturgy; I attended an LCMS church for a year in college, and they were the ones who introduced me to liturgical worship, a gift for which I am grateful. Because their statement of faith asserts the inerrancy of Scripture, I would categorize them as "conservative" rather than "mainline". The ELCA would be their mainline counterpart.

I have not personally been able to track down the first usages of the word "mainline", though I think some church historians have done that research. I can speak to how I've heard the word used, but that's about it. I think it's useful to have a neutral term to refer to the Protestant denominations that value church history and tradition but that also reject inerrancy, and to my ear "mainline" serves that purpose well.

 

[The Liturgist]

I assume we agree on the actual facts about the denominations -- some are more conservative than others, some are larger than others, and the theological family trees of the denominations is a matter of historical record. It's the terminology of "mainline", "fundamentalist", and maybe "modernist" that's under discussion.

"Fundamentalist" and "modernist" were at one time used to describe the conservative and liberal sides in the 20th century controversies. I haven't heard the word "modernist" used in ages, except as a historical reference, so I think that word is slipping out of usage. "Fundamentalist" used to mean "holding to the fundamentals of the faith", but it has drifted in meaning so that it's now mostly a perjorative, and it's also ceasing to be a useful theological term.

The terms I hear more frequently now are "conservative", "inerrantist", or "evangelical" for the denominations that maintain the inerrancy of the Bible, and "mainline" or "progressive" or "liberal" for those that do not.

The LCMS are not Fundamentalist, in the modern usage of the word. I am aware of the beauty of LCMS liturgy; I attended an LCMS church for a year in college, and they were the ones who introduced me to liturgical worship, a gift for which I am grateful. Because their statement of faith asserts the inerrancy of Scripture, I would categorize them as "conservative" rather than "mainline". The ELCA would be their mainline counterpart.

I have not personally been able to track down the first usages of the word "mainline", though I think some church historians have done that research. I can speak to how I've heard the word used, but that's about it. I think it's useful to have a neutral term to refer to the Protestant denominations that value church history and tradition but that also reject inerrancy, and to my ear "mainline" serves that purpose well.

This is an interesting argument, but my understanding is that some of the liberal denominations commonly called “mainline”, while being liberal, do at least nominally adhere to scriptural inerrancy. It should be noted that given the vast array of interpretations of scripture, one could be extremely liberal and still adhere to it as being inerrant on the basis of an alternate theological model.

 

[hedrick]

I believe there's a fairly specific list of mainline churches. Wikipedia lists the traditional ones: "the United Methodist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Episcopal Church, the American Baptist Churches, the United Church of Christ, and the Disciples of Christ—as well as the Quakers, Reformed Church in America, African Methodist Episcopal church and other churches." The 7 on the first list, which is what I'd consider the core of mainline Protestantism, do not adhere to inerrancy, although they certainly have members and even congregations that do. I'm not so sure about the others listed. It seems odd to consider the Quakers mainline Protestant. RCA tends to be slightly more conservative. I don't know much about the AME.

As to the history. I understand fundamentalism as defined based on the early 20th Cent disagreements. At that time the following fundamentals were listed. From Wikipedia:

• The inspiration of the Bible by the Holy Spirit and the inerrancy of Scripture as a result of this.
• The virgin birth of Christ.
• The belief that Christ's death was an atonement for sin. [I think Wikipedia is a bit wrong on this; the real issue was penal substitution.]
• The bodily resurrection of Christ.
• The historical reality of Christ's miracles.

(While not on this list, evolution and thus the historicity of Genesis, was very much part of that debate.) As I understand it, the non-fundamentalists believed it was permissible to question these. In addition, social action also tended to be a disagreement. The Social Gospel was already a thing at this point.

I don't think things are much different today.

The term "fundamentalism" has probably drifted in meaning. It might be that today strict adherence to the "fundamentals" would typically be termed "conservative." I don't think that changes the discussion here though. I believe the faith of modern mainline denominations, including the UMC in the US, is very close to the non-fundamental / non-conservative side of the early 20th Cent controversy.

As it happens, I have a copy of the book used to teach the Bible and theology for high school Sunday School in the PCUSA in the 1960's. It is still in print. (https://www.amazon.com/Bible-Speaks-Robert-McAfee-Brown/dp/0664245978/ -- while the date is shown as 1984, it was originally published in the 50's I believe.) It would still be representative of our beliefs. The Confession of 1967 is still considered a current document.

 

[hedrick]

It seems like every generation a group of conservatives in the PCUSA suddenly realize they're in a liberal denomination and get all upset about the church falling away. I'm not sure how they would not have noticed that they were in a liberal church all along.

The PCUSA is, and always has been, mixed in theology. I teach 5th and 6th grade Sunday School. Even today, the two teachers take opposite positions on the historical accuracy of some portions of the Bible. Our congregation has no problem with elders and teachers from either background, though there would be limits to how far into either the liberal or conservative fringe we'd want Sunday School teachers to be. Personally I stay very close to the published positions of the denomination when teaching.

To my knowledge the same is true of the UMC. I was confirmed in the UMC. My parents were lifelong, active members. So I kept up with what was going on. (I've been a Presbyterian except for 6 years in junior and senior high school.)