The Twelve Tribes of Methodism Pt. 1

In 2016 Rev. Tom Berlin began using a model that has been very helpful in understanding four different groupings of people that now divide the United Methodist Church. The short version: One is either traditional or progressive in regard to LGBT+ inclusion and one can either function in a denomination with those who disagree (compatible) or cannot function in that denomination (incompatible). You can lay the groups out from left to right and cover the ecclesiological landscape.

Berlin's language really has been helpful because it is both clear and simple. As our journey in these times continues we need a different way of describing the perspectives.

Take a person like Steve Harper. I was pleased to preview his latest book, a very readable personal and biblical story of how he came to change his mind. Dr. Harper is theologically orthodox by almost any definition - except that of the WCA which insists that LGBT+ inclusion is wrong. Harper is not a theological progressive; he is a theological traditionalist, or maybe centrist, who happens to believe in inclusion.

This distinction is critically important. In 2018 some evangelicals enjoyed quoting Rev. Roger Wolsey, a United Methodist pastor and campus minister, denying a whole host of traditional Christian beliefs. Wolsey has clarified some of his beliefs since, but there is no doubting that he is truly a "Progressive Christian." And there is no doubt that Harper (and me, too, for that matter) disagree with Wolsey. It really doesn't work to put both Harper and Wolsey in the same progressive compatibilist camp.

 We need to add a third dimension - the broader theological spectrum. It may also help to rename the existing categories. Here's my proposal:

1st Dimension: Do you believe that LGBT+ Christians should be fully included in the life of the church, including ordained ministry and marriage? Those who support this could be labeled "Inclusive" and those who do not "Exclusive". Please note that I'm not using the word exclusive in a derogatory sense - it is simply a descriptor.

2nd Dimension: Can you remain in a denomination with those who disagree with your belief in the 1st Dimension? If you can, you believe in a Big Tent rather than a Small Tent. Rev. Jeff Greenway, President of the WCA, has publicly shared that a big tent church is a bad idea. The proclamation from the recent UM Forward event in Minneapolis suggests a different kind of small tent. This tent welcomes the outcast and rejects powerful. The One Church Plan envisioned a big tent that supporters felt was in keeping with a long Methodist tradition.

3rd Dimension: The new, third dimension relates to a more wholistic theology: Progressive (like Wolsey), Traditional (like Harper), or Centrist (like perhaps my friend Dr. Rebekah Miles).


When we put these three dimensions together we get a table like this:

Inclusive, Small Tent, Progressive	Inclusive, Big Tent, Progressive	Exclusive, Big Tent, Progressive	Exclusive, Small Tent Progressive
Inclusive, Small Tent, Centrist	Inclusive, Big Tent, Centrist	Exclusive, Big Tent, Centrist	Exclusive, Small Tent, Centrist
Inclusive, Small Tent, Traditionalist	Inclusive, Big Tent, Traditionalist	Exclusive, Big Tent, Traditionalist	Exclusive, Small Tent, Traditionalist

Reading the table, the right side is exclusive, the center columns are big tent, and the rows moving down are progressively traditional. Each grouping is unique, and each grouping will have a unique set of other groups that they can work with.

Some implications of this methodology:
- the WCA and Good News led wing of the church really is a wing - a right wing that is likely not representative of the church. But the leadership has done a fantastic job of messaging.
- The UMC Next gathering in Kansas City invited people from nine of the twelve groups. And I'm not sure all nine will ultimately be able to stay in the same denomination.
- This methodology forces us to acknowledge that we are a complicated bunch. This is part of why our current impasse is so tricky.
- Note: the twelve tribes listed are theoretical. Four of these groups are probably only theoretical and don't exist in any meaningful way in the real world.


In Part 2 I'll describe characteristics of each of these groups and begin to look at where there are some affinities and tensions between the groups.