Have you ever wondered what John Wesley may have thought of
proposals to divide the United Methodist Church? Wonder no more:
“It is evil in itself. To separate ourselves from a body of
living Christian, with whom we were before united, is a grievous breach of the
law of love. It is the nature of love to unite us together; and the greater the
love, the stricter the union. And while this continues in its strength, nothing
can divide those whom love has united. It is only when our love grows cold,
that we can think of separating from our brethren. And this is certainly the
case with any who willingly separate from their Christian brethren. The
pretenses for separation may be innumerable, but want of love is always the
real cause; otherwise they would still hold the unity of the Spirit
in the bound of peace. It is therefore contrary to all those commands of God,
wherein brotherly love is enjoined: To that of St. Paul, ‘Let brotherly love
continue:’ -- that of St. John, ‘My beloved children, love one another;’ -- and
especially to that of our blessed Master, ‘This is my commandment, That ye love
on another, as I have loved you’ Yea, ‘By this,’ saith he, ‘shall all men know
that ye are my disciples, if ye love one another.’” – John Wesley, Sermon 75, On Schism
Let me just repeat the phrase I highlighted above:
“The pretenses for separation may be innumerable, but want
of love is always the real cause.”
In the present case, the pretense for separation is the
status and role in the church of people who are gay, specifically as it
pertains to marriage and ordination. There’s no way to know, except to
speculate, as to what Mr. Wesley would have believed regarding the specific
questions on same-sex marriages and the ordination of people who are gay. I’m
not intending to engage in such speculation at the moment.
I am intending to elevate our denomination’s conversation to
a place of love and true ecclesial connection. Talk of who has permission to
marry or not, talk of who might be ordained or not … all is mere pretense. The
true root of our division is want of love.
For God’s sake, can we not love one another?
Furthermore, John Wesley understood schism as more than mere
formal division. “[Schism] is not a separation from a church … it is a separation in a church,” he preached (emphasis mine). In that sense, the United
Methodist Church has already experienced schism, and the true question
is not whether to divide or not, but rather whether to unify again or not.
The question becomes one of faith: Do we as a church have
sufficient faith in God to become one again? We are already divided. The schism
has happened. The question really is: now what?
It seems to me that if we truly loved each other, we’d stick
together, even if we fight sometimes. My kids argue with each other, but they
stick together, because they love each other. Can the United Methodist Church
follow the example my children are setting?
There are a bunch of plans floating around out there; we
could see anything from maintenance of the status quo to outright division to
some kind of compromise. All will be decided in 2016 at our next General
Conference, pending an appeal to the Judicial Council, I suppose.
As we approach General Conference of 2016, maybe the United
Methodist Church needs to start with confessing that the schism has already
taken place. Maybe by reorienting our denomination to that reality can we ask
the questions that really need to be asked:
Are we bold enough to come back together?
Are we faithful enough to trust God with the future?
Do we love one another or not?
3 comments:
I'm afraid it won't be settled in 2016, any more than it has in the many past General Conferences. It was a major issue in 1996, the first time I attended GC, and it certainly doesn't look any better, I'm very sorry to observe .
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Wesley separate from the Anglican church when he formed the church that became Methodist?
1 Timothy 1:9-10, "realizing the fact that (civil) law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers."
In no way shape or form does this scripture, or numerous others like it, suggest that as a Christian I should not love any person who has taken part in the listed sins. I love all persons, regardless of who they are or what they've done. But when sin meets holiness, there is a fire that erupts until all sin is burned away. So what conclusion does that bring us to? Anyone who sins needs to turn from that sin and repent, and follow CHRIST. Our sins, for each of us, are extensive...but GOD and sin cannot occupy the same place at the same time. Through love I may attract those around me to CHRIST...this does not mean that I bend to accept their chosen way of life. What would the church do if murder was seen as ok? How about adultery? Or any other sin listed? Would we move to be accepting instead of loving? There is a big and moral difference between 'acceptance' and 'lovingkindness'.
-Erik
Post a Comment