,
19 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
The various crises in American religion– especially the talk of division in the #UMC--have prompted me to revisit research I did in the 1980s as the Southern Baptist Convention was being transformed into the monolithically conservative body it is today. amazon.com/dp/B004QEZ80S/…
How does a denomination arrive at and move through a split? It’s not enough just to have an argument about theology or practice. That argument has to tap deeper social divisions. And then the very complicated organizational work of division has to get underway.
There were real theological differences between the SBC parties, just as there are between the traditional and progressive Methodists, but the differences were also social and political.
SBC progressives–they called themselves “moderates”–were more likely to value seminary educated clergy and favor women’s and minority rights. Conservatives opposed abortion and welfare, and were strongly anti-communist (remember, this was the 80s).
In a very large denomination, spread out across the country, such differences can coexist for a long time without a split. A split requires an organized movement. That’s what happened to Baptists in the 1980s, and that is what has happened to Methodists over the last decade.
So what now? One thing is sure – nothing will happen quickly. Whatever division happens will unfold at multiple levels over at least a decade.
Denominations aren’t just individuals who share a theology. They are complex organizations with national bureaucracies, regional branch offices, local congregations, and individual members. Each of those parts of the whole will come apart in different ways.
How that happens is determined by the denomination’s “polity,” that is, the way it governs itself. Baptists don’t have bishops, but Methodists do. That means that it is harder for a Methodist congregation or clergy member simply to do as they individually think is right.
Most critically, Methodists' "connectional" polity means that the congregation doesn’t own its property – although this recent #GC2019 seems to have opened the door to churches leaving without giving up their buildings.
Even denominations without bishops, though, have extensive national organizations that have lots of influence over what happens in local churches. They develop programs, publish literature, organize mission efforts, and educate clergy.
If traditionalist Methodists prevail and progressive ones leave we can expect to see a slow but inevitable transformation of their national organizations as board members and staff are replaced.
A few Methodist organizations, including some of the theological schools, may be able to declare independence, develop new funding streams, and “re-brand” themselves so as to keep a claim on their historic identity.
The most visible splitting among Methodists is likely to happen at the local church level. Individual congregations will have to decide whether to stay, and if not, where to go. In some cases, that decision may divide the congregation itself.
Some progressive congregations will stay and force the fight, as a few Baptist ones did. Others may simply exit quietly. The ones that have already identified with the movement to accept LGBTQ members and clergy are the ones to watch.
When a church leaves, it can either join with others to form something new or join up with an existing denomination. There doesn’t yet appear to be a nascent progressive Methodist alternative, but there are overtures already emerging from other denominations.
But what about individual Methodists? If they are like the Baptists in the 1980s, most haven’t been paying much attention to all the sound and fury. Middle of the road Methodists may not notice much change, at least initially.
But there are sometimes crises that change that. When the issue of accepting LGBTQ persons becomes personal – a son or daughter, perhaps – individual Methodists may seek a new place to worship, and it may or may not be Methodist.
Perhaps more critically, @PewResearch shows young adults are overwhelmingly on the progressive side of this issue. Their failure to pursue a clergy career – or to stay in the church – is likely to further solidify a traditionalist future for the UMC.
How, then, do you split a denomination? Slowly and in hundreds of painful decisions. The results, however, may be multiple new –and more polarized-- religious bodies with less diverse middle ground.
