Take a quick look at any United Methodist related social media and you will quickly find that everybody thinks that everybody they disagree with is in schism. It is asserted from the left that those who would leave the UMC if the One Church Plan are schismatic and from the right that the left is already in schism because of the election of Bishop Karen Oliveto. Both are right. And both are wrong.
Wesley's sermon On Schism is the source that we must turn to. It's noteworthy that Wesley begins by saying that churches in schism seem to always disagree about who is schismatic. We are replaying history that has itself been replayed multiple times. He goes on to make a clear case for a scriptural definition of schism from 1 Corinthians. He says, "Can anything be more plain than that the 'schisms' here spoken of were not separation from but divisions in the church of Corinth?" [language and emphases throughout are taken directly from The Works of John Wesley, volume 3.] The plain meaning of the text does seem to be clear. Go to 1 Corinthians 1:10 yourself and see what you think.
So let's pause. One could certainly make a case that in electing Bishop Oliveto to the episcopacy the Western Jurisdiction acted in a way that made our schism plain. We can almost hear two people arguing with one saying, "I'm with Bishop Oliveto!" and another saying, "I'm with Bishop Lowery!". That, Wesley says, is the Biblical definition of schism. But in this sermon Wesley does not cast blame on one group or the other. He notes the reality of the situation. To one degree or another both parties are to blame - both parties are in a relationship of schism with one another - because both parties have "an alienation…of affection toward their brethren."
This is the argument from the right. The liberals are in schism because they have violated the covenant of the Church while they are in the church. The point is valid. And the point could be reversed. I'm not sure an objective observer would see much affection flowing in either direction. That's one reason I appreciate Mainstream UMC's position that we want all people to be part of the denomination. We really do think a big tent church is good.
Now let's move on, because Wesley has one more critical point to make. The WCA and others would have you believe that this is the end of Wesley's sermon. It is not. He goes on to say that while most of Christianity has misunderstood schism, the popular conception of it (separation from a church) is still valid. "Schism, even in this sense, is both evil in itself, and productive of evil consequences." He goes on, "To separate ourselves from a body of living Christians with whom we were before united is a grievous breach of the law of love. … The pretences for separation may be innumerable, but want of love is always the real cause." Wesley then goes on for five paragraphs about all the evil that comes from church splits, including that it harms our evangelistic efforts.
But here's the kicker for those who defend the exodus that the WCA has proposed. Their argument for leaving if the One Church Plan passes amounts to, "we can't stay in a denomination with people who will practice so differently than us." Wesley acknowledges that there are times when a person may need to leave a body of believers. That time comes only if "...we could not continue without sin" or "I was not allowed to continue therein without breaking a commandment of God." He then uses his contemporary Church of England as an example. It's not entirely different from our situation. Wesley believed the Church had largely missed what God wanted them to do, yet he never separated from them. Why? Because as wrong as he thought the Church was on certain matters continuing in the Church never caused him to sin.
Listen: "...suppose the church or society to which I am now united does not require me to do anything which the Scriptures forbids, or to omit anything with the Scripture enjoins, it is then my indispensable duty to continue therein. And If I separate from it without any such necessity I am justly chargeable…with all the evils consequent upon that separation."
So here's what it boils down to. The One Church Plan very intentionally avoids forcing people to make decisions that they believe Scripture forbids. No Bishop must ordain, no pastor must marry, no conference must certify. In fact, the One Church Plan remains the only plan that does not force a split. It is the only plan that allows space for people to believe differently while holding us together. And in that sense it is the only plan that is not schismatic.
If Wesley was alive today would he favor same-sex marriage and LGBT ordination? I think he probably would not. But he would have a loyalty to the Church and such a high view of the Sanctity of the Church that I think he would approve of the One Church Plan as a reasonable path forward to hold us together for the sake of the mission of the Church.
No comments:
Post a Comment