urgent matter at hand. Bishop Temperate.
Temperate: Let me suggest that tomorrow we should prevent any motion regarding separation from being presented on the floor. We should rule it out of order. We should avoid the topic. Some of us should work behind the scenes and discourage delegates from bringing such a motion, but if it comes up we should kill it immediately. We were consecrated to maintain the unity of the church and it is our calling to use our authority to bury this.
Leeway: Even though I sympathize with your goal it would be a misuse of our power and would fuel deeper divisions. We need to become more inclusive by creating a more flexible structure that enables people who disagree to remain in the denomination. We must agree to disagree on this issue and we need to give conservatives and liberals alike the space they need to be true to their beliefs. Only then can we focus on those things that unite us.
Credo: You cannot fix this with bureaucratic changes. You are just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. This has been a long time in coming. The actions of this General Conference call into the question whether the United Methodist Church as we know it is still part of the church of Jesus Christ. For forty years we have been fighting over the issue of homosexuality, and it has impaired our missional effectiveness. Perhaps the time has come for us to go our separate ways. This is like a dysfunctional marriage in which any further arguing is harmful.
Anchor: I can almost agree with you, except that we still have our doctrines which are constitutionally protected.2 This is what should unite us, and we should not consider further changes to our system in order to accommodate immorality, which is the fruit of heresy. We conservatives should not leave. We should stand against this immoral decision and insist on doctrinal fidelity. But we must be prepared to be kicked out. I am afraid that our persecution is inevitable.
Embrace: Perhaps, Credo, you are right. It is time for us to go our separate ways. For years I have grieved the loss of our gay brothers and sisters who have given so much to the church. Their persecution began a long time ago. How long should someone stay in a marriage in which they are being abused?
South: This seems to be an American issue. In my conference we have much bigger concerns. If we were truly a worldwide church, would this issue take up so much time and energy?
Hound: Divorce and the Inquisition. Now there’s a pair of hopeful metaphors! What are the limits of disagreement? How can we disagree and maintain true fellowship? What are the things that truly unite us? For that matter, what does it mean to be “the church” in its discipline and doctrine as well as its mission and spirituality? We have not done a very good job of helping the church talk about these issues on a level that engages our Wesleyan tradition.
Compass: In this late hour we should return to our roots and listen to Wesley who also faced the issues of schism and separation. We might find in him some wise counsel for our crisis.
What is Unity?
Temperate: What would Wesley think of the phrase, “amicable separation”? It is an oxymoron. There is no such thing as a friendly divorce. I cannot imagine how separation is in keeping with the spirit of Wesley. We must redirect our attention to what truly unites us, which is our common mission in Jesus Christ. This has always united us as United Methodists. Can’t we simply focus on those aspects of the mission of the church on which we all agree? As Wesley said, “Then if we cannot as yet think alike in all things, at least we may love alike. Herein we cannot possibly do amiss.”3
Credo: What you are referring to was Wesley’s understanding of Christian unity. In his sermon “Catholic Spirit” Wesley mentioned two types of union: external and “union of affection.” He acknowledged that external union may not be possible (or even desirable) on issues such as style of worship.
Hound: Obviously, he was a realist about getting those old Methodists to start singing praise songs and using Power Point. The typical congregation can’t unite the early service folks with the late service folks, how do we expect to keep an entire denomination connected?
Leeway: Regardless, Wesley believed in a deeper, spiritual unity that is always possible and, indeed, is already a gift given to us. He went on to describe how we should express our unity by praying for one another, encouraging one another to grow in faith and good works, and even by confronting one another with the truth in order to bring out the best in each other. As he said, “smite me friendly.”4 There is a pro-active nature to Christian unity. It is not merely a goal toward which we must strive. We must actively participate in this gift of unity in the Holy Spirit. “This is catholic or universal love,” wrote Wesley, “For love alone gives the title to this character—catholic love is a catholic spirit.”5
Anchor: But Wesley limited what he meant by “catholic spirit.” He said that it is not an indifference to core doctrinal beliefs that he called “speculative latitudinarianism,” which is a “great curse, not a blessing; an irreconcilable enemy, not a friend, to true Catholicism.” Anyone with the true catholic spirit is “fixed as the sun in his judgment concerning the main branches of Christian doctrine.” He would not settle for “muddy understanding” in order to avoid a conflict or to ignore the role of doctrine in Christian unity by “jumbling all opinions together.”6
Isn’t Tolerance Enough?
Leeway: Why can’t we agree to disagree? What is wrong with having different interpretations of doctrine and differences of opinion as long as we can all get along. Our greatest strength is our pluralism. The United Methodist Church is a big tent, and the only thing we need to unite us is an agreement to respect each other, because you can believe whatever you want and be a United Methodist.
Credo: You are equating tolerance with unity. They are not the same. Tolerance is fine for a democratic society, but church unity requires more.
Anchor: Ultimately, your vision of pluralism is incoherent and contradictory. In order for pluralism to unite us, everyone must abandon their adherence to specific beliefs in exchange for complete relativism to adjudicate the conflict. In that case, respect for real diversity is lost. For conservatives, who hold specific beliefs and practices to be essential to the faith, pluralism demands that they exchange the substance of their faith for words and symbols that mean something else or have no meaning. At best, this is a détente; at worst, it is anarchy.7
Temperate: While I agree that our denomination is a big tent and there is room for diverse opinions, I do not believe that pluralism is enough to unite us. The Holy Spirit unites us, not our capacity for politeness. Thus, tolerance as the centerpiece of church unity is nothing more than founding the church on human effort.
Also, there is something hallow and dishonest to say that we can have diametrically opposed interpretations about key beliefs and yet are united. If all we have to unite us is tolerance then it is a unity of the lowest common denominator and that is insufficient to keep us together, much less to effectively carry out our mission and renew the church. It would be like a dysfunctional marriage in which the spouses merely share the same house; it would be a pretense of a true covenant of marriage.
What I am saying is that there is a degree of wideness in our tradition that allows for theological diversity. How wide is that diversity? Conservatives portray the tradition as if it were a bowling lane with a narrow pathway. Instead, I think of our theological heritage like a baseball diamond from which the foul lines expand out and allow for a wider variety of fair balls to be thrown. Either way, there are certain key things that we reject.8
What is the Church?
Embrace: Wesley’s concept of catholic spirit may help us. It reflects his understanding of the nature of the church, and even though doctrine plays a role, it is not at the center of church unity.
He
