Social institutions offer collective identity, a way to be “us.” We can take them as formative, rooted in submission, or as performative, a place to express our individuality. The THEORY of denominational structures like the #umc is that it’s the 1st; yet we yearn for the latter.
Since the #UMC is a “we” structure many find themselves pushed to submit to a structure that includes that which they find repulsive. The “we” declares an aspect of identity & proposes communal action that the “I” cannot abide.
If the #UMC could reimagine the nature & function of itself as a denomination, loosening the elements of control so more constituents could say of it “This is me” AND “this is not me” we could have a way forward together.
The current “presenting” issue in the #UMC is difference regarding sexuality. Across the denomination we look at BOD restrictions & say “This IS/ISN’T me;” likewise we look at the enforcement (or idea of enforcement) of these restrictions and, usually flip who affirms or not.
When it comes to Trinitarian theology, some in #UMC see commitment to “Father, Son, Spirit” language as essential to their Christian identity & are repulsed by the modalistic “Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer” language preferred by those with certain feminist sensibilities.
Likewise, those in the #UMC with certain feminist sensibilities will, when they hear official denominational outlets use what they hear as patriarchal language say, “That’s not me/us!”
A generation of normative doctrinal pluralism in the #UMC BOD from 1972 until the 1988 revision - & de facto doctrinal pluralism continuing since (embedded as it was in so many of our institutions & leaders) added to the deeply formative theory embedded in our Constitution...
... resulted in deep incoherence we are experiencing now. If doctrine is ONLY a list of historically relative propositions not to be taken “literally or juridically” we miss the way they FORM our identity. Likewise, if the rules in the #UMC BOD are framed as rules to be...
... obeyed, yet are also felt to be optional or treated as inimical to our identity forming convictions, the #UMC cannot hold together.
We CAN claim the Congregationalist route (common these days) & say of the actions/statements that contradict our sense of identity, “THAT isn’t us. Whatever happens on the denominational level, our church will continue as it is.” That view doesn’t cohere with current #UMC polity
The #UMC could become a looser entity, centered on some activity we do together. If we did, which activity would it be? "Making disciples?" As long as we're sufficiently vague about what that means, that could work. Except vagueness on this is not conducive to making disciples.
