Conflict In The Church

For over forty years the United Methodist Church has waged conflict over the primary topic of what role scripture will play in determining the values and praxis of Christian life expressed through the Church.  The subject matter had wavered but have all been drawn from areas of social justice -the battle fields have flexed but the common cause is the tension between those who view scripture and its teachings and expectations as vital and applicable regardless of era and those who view scripture as one dated tool in a chest devoted to improving the plight of humanity via social programs, political activism and philosophical/psychological theories that supplant ancient books.

The most recent topic for this conflict has become the issue of the acceptance of practicing homosexuals to become clergy and the marriage of same-sex couples. It should be noted that at no records have been located that verify homosexuals ever been cast out of the United Methodist Church in the United States. Evidence of those homosexuals who have left churches due to unkindness of members or less than welcoming acceptance in a congregation appear to be no greater than those people generally run off by unkind or unwelcome churches.

There is no provision in the UMC to kick out members, no requirements for membership other than those outlined in the church's Book of Discipline that speak of a willingness to Follow Christ. Church membership vows include only an affirmation that a member will support the local church with their presence, prayers, gifts and witness. There is no affirmation to uphold any particular theology or adhere to specific behaviors as a member. Over the past several decades this essential vagueness when it came to lay participation was lacking enough to cause some wit to affirm that a person could be a UM and believe anything!

The requirements for those who became clergy was - and remains - the most detailed as to requirements, training, and vows.  Among those vows is a clear willingness and dedication to uphold the Book of Discipline and the teachings of the UMC: They vow to uphold the "order, liturgy, doctrine, and discipline, defending it against all doctrines contrary to God's Holy Word, and committing yourself to be accountable with those serving with you, and to the bishop and those who are appointed to supervise your ministry?"

In the birth of Methodism, they were often forced out of congregations of the Church of England and by the birth of the United States they had formed into a Methodist Church due to the conflict over theology and praxis. Although founder John Wesley never left the Church of England, he aided those involved and committed to a life of spiritual commitment and renewal in forming the Methodist Church.

In the 1840's the Methodist Church split over those churches holding that slavery was wrong and those that upheld the concept and practice of slavery. Each offered their own takes on the theological argument about slavery and differed widely as to the praxis of slavery in the Christian life. They split to form the Methodist Episcopal Church and the Methodist Episcopal, South -  united in form of worship but separated by differing theological and praxis views related to a political, social and spiritual issue of slavery.

In the late 1890's and early 1900's the Pentecostal movement emerged, often springing out of Wesleyan Holiness and Methodist groups and churches, they were forced out of the Methodist Churches of that time because the theology and praxis of the those involved in that renewal movement did not agree. These individual left and many united with emerging groups to form now worldwide denominations and movements.

Now, the modern example of this has taken the tension of the 1920's clash over "modernism" with its higher critical views on scripture, its support of social gospel and social improvement over issues such as sin, repentance, or importance of scripture as a guide for modern Christian life and joined this with the social revolution of the 1960's that questioned all traditional models, challenged accepted cultural values, and emphasized a self-absorbed search for self-acutualization and ultimate contentment over values of self-restraint, sacrifice, commitment, and traditional values.

So, it is little wonder that today, in the cusp of the second decade of the 21st century that the UMC is once more facing a watershed moment over theology and praxis. In this time, the focus is not on finding common ground but refusal to yield anything, including compromise or acceptance of the decisions of the representative governing bodies as to what constitutes church law, church regulations, and church theology and praxis.

The decision was made by the 2019 Special Called Conference that the Church would abide by the statements in the BOD regarding the non-ordaination of practicing, self-avowed homosexuals into the clergy and the rules that forbid any clergy or church to perform same-sex marriages.

Here the non-supporters had the clear choice (as they always had) of disaffiliating themselves with a church they did not agree with, could no longer support, and no longer reflected in their theology and praxis.  Just as earlier groups had left and formed churches that better reflected a specific view.

Instead, there has been open rejection of those laws, rules, decisions, and the theology/praxis they include. Open resistance, rebellion, protest and acting out have come to mark every conference and general gathering. 

Labels have emerged and been applied or claimed: Progressives and Liberals who claimed for themselves the label of Mainstream Methodists representing the Centrist or Moderate camps and Conservatives who are labeled sometimes with the label Fundamentalist but who weakly accept the label Traditionalist  and often see themselves as more really more theologically Orthodox.

Progressives/Liberals make demands that while the church awaits yet another General Conference and an assumed conclusion to decades of debate, that no charges be leveled against resisting clergy, protesting  churches or revolutionary bishops. This, while at the same time, churches are openly aligning themselves as resistance churches, protesting conferences, disobedient clergy and compliant bishops. This uneven application of tolerance and judicial waiting goes unacknowledged.

An old saying from the nursery comes to mind: what is s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Also unanswered is the question of why people have chosen to dig in their heels and hostilely take over a denomination they had ceased to agree with , had opened disobeyed, and had no desire to see continue?  Is it merely an application of the social destruction embedded in the economic concept of Creative destruction (German: schöpferische Zerstörung), to social-religious settings?  The Post-Modern need to eradicate all that has gone before in search of creating a new, improved, vision of human life and experience?

Or, simply sinful humanity seeking to have its own way, distinct and apart from the message of the scriptures about the need of repentance and spiritual transformation that leads to scriptural holiness and godly behaviors?

In the end - most conflict in the church and in human settings- can be reduced to the lack of spiritual transformation, the failure to let Christ reshape us into the beings we should be in relationship with Christ, and the inability to follow where that path leads.