The Disaffiliation Process, Labeling and the Mis-Measure of the Church

Photo by Daniel Tseng on Unsplash

In the face of repeated violations of the Methodist Book of Discipline, with aberrant doctrines being propounded by ministers and bishops alike who should have known better, and with wanton disregard for the sheer goodness and beauty of the gospel playing out in pulpits both near and far, so many members of the United Methodist Church have in the end cried “enough”! This was a genuine cri de coeur, a passionate appeal, a heart-felt complaint, even a belabored protest and lament, over the loss of an inordinate good that was bright and shining in its day, but unfortunately is no longer. 

In light of these painful and unsettling developments, in January, 2020, an agreement was reached (Protocol of Grace and Reconciliation Through Separation) between revisionists, who wanted to re-vision historic Methodism in light of reigning cultural trends, and traditionalists who wanted to preserve the faithful witness of earlier generations especially in terms of the preeminent authority of Scripture and of the enormous value of the sacred tradition of the church. This latter heritage of faithfulness included, of course, the witness of the primitive church and the Anglican Reformation, as well as historic Methodism itself with its emphasis on the radiant beauty of holiness and the wisdom of forsaking all manner of self-curving, self-referential will, whether on a personal or on a social (ethnocentric) level. 

Contemporary Methodism was slowly, incrementally, becoming something that it never was. Its basic identifying narrative was being re-visioned in light of contemporary cultural and political trends playing out largely in North America. Precisely for these reasons, many Methodists, both clergy and laity alike, expressed a heart-felt desire to disaffiliate from the denomination. They wished to be free to worship and to take up the yoke of Christian discipleship in ecclesiastical settings much more in line with the genius of historic Methodism. To that end, a provision of the Book of Discipline (Paragraph 2553) was utilized by many so that local churches could disaffiliate from the UMC and follow their consciences all the way into other denominations, with the Global Methodist Church being a very suitable and welcoming communion of faith. 

As a Wesley scholar who has been in the field for many years, I receive numerous speaking invitations. Recently I gave three lectures on the stunning beauty of John Wesley’s theology, informed as it is by the overwhelming generosity of a God of holy love, at a Global Methodist Church gathering held in Michigan. Speaking personally with several men and women, with pastors and laity alike, during breaks and at meals, I came to learn how greatly these folk have suffered in following their consciences, illuminated by the Holy Spirit, into the fellowship of the Global Methodist Church. So many told me that as they made this courageous and faithful transition, yielding to the gentle sway of conscience, they were actually harried by key leaders in the United Methodist Church who labeled them as “schismatics.” I was stunned. 

Sensing the considerable pain and the emotional distress endured by the men and women who were sitting right in front of me, and knowing as an historian/theologian of the church that I could do them much good, I decided to interrupt the normal course of my lectures and to address the charge of schism (the language which even some traditionalists at times mistakenly use) head on. This essay, then, will demonstrate, among other things, that such a designation, such recent labeling, is grossly inappropriate, historically confused, and in the end theologically troubled. It does not describe the disaffiliation process at all. 

Historically speaking, I must point out first of all that schism does not entail withdrawing from a church but is an alienation of holy love, a loss of affection, that occurs within the church. Put another way, it entails a factious or party spirit that can arise among the faithful, from various sources, and burn like a fire with the possible loss of the sweet graces and the gentle harmonies of solid Christian fellowship. In his own day, the Apostle Paul confronted the specter of schism in the Corinthian church when he warned as follows: 

I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? (1 Cor. 1:10-13). 

Moreover, John Wesley added his voice to the Apostle Paul’s wise counsel as is evident in the following caution he offered to the Methodists: “Beware of schism, of making a rent in the Church of Christ. That inward disunion, the members ceasing to have a reciprocal love ‘one for another,’ (1 Cor. 12:25) is the very root of all contention….” 

Second, for the sake of clarity it must also be pointed out that schism is not heresy, though many people confuse these two terms even today. Schism is not doctrinal aberration or waywardness but it is once again a breach of charity, a loss of holy affection such that fellowship may no longer be in the offing. Two of the major schisms of the historic church occurred well before the Reformation, first of all during the Donatist controversy of the late fourth and early fifth centuries, and secondly during the Great Schism of 1054 when Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy were alienated from one another in the midst of mutual recriminations and condemnations. Again, schism is not separation from the church, for both Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox remain Christians to this day. Rather, it is a division within the church. Simply put, schism never entails only one. It always takes at least two, and possibly more, for this kind of ecclesiastical fault to occur.

So then, if the whole matter of revisionists declaring traditionalists schismatic is both inappropriate and problematic (as if revisionists themselves were not involved in this larger process at all!), then what would be a better, more accurate, and fairer description of what is currently taking place in the disaffiliation process? In order to answer this timely question a proper doctrine of the church must first of all be recognized and affirmed. 

When John Wesley himself took up the question of defining the church in a way that would resonate with both the authority of Scripture, as the Word of God, and with the sacred tradition of the primitive church, he actually employed two basic frameworks, not one. The first one was drawn from the Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles and was reproduced in the Methodist Articles (Article XIII) as found, for instance, in the Sunday Service of the Methodists in North America drafted in 1784. This thirteenth article, which represents an entire framework, reads as follows: “The visible Church of Christ is a Congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments duly administered according to Christ’s Ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.” Such a definition of the church, which hailed from the time of the Reformation, not only identifies the Body of Christ in terms of a faithful Congregation, but it also underscores the importance of proper actions, specifically in terms of rightly preaching the Word of God and duly administering the sacraments. Later on historians reckoned that this definition of the church, which informed the life of both Anglicanism and Methodism, allowed for the mixed assemblies of sinners and saints, of nominal and real Christians, that Augustine recognized in his own ecclesiology and played out in large national churches such as the Church of England. 

The other ecclesiastical framework that Wesley employed is amply expressed in his key sermon “Of the Church” that was produced late in his career in 1785 and represents some of his mature thinking on the subject. Going beyond the primitive church of ante-Nicene Christianity, Wesley lifted up the four marks of the church as articulated by the Second Ecumenical Council held in Constantinople in 381 AD. So understood, the church of Jesus Christ is one, holy, catholic and apostolic. Interestingly enough, in this particular sermon Wesley does not explore these marks in the familiar and often-repeated order. Moreover, the two marks of the catholicity and apostolicity of the church receive only a minor treatment at his hands. To be sure, the lion’s share of attention in this sermon is taken up with a very helpful exploration of both the oneness and the holiness of the church. In terms of the former, for example, Wesley insists that there is “one Spirit,” “one hope,” “one Lord,” “one faith,” “one baptism,” and “one God and Father of all.” And in terms of the latter mark, namely holiness, Wesley affirms all of the following: 

Nay, the shortest and the plainest reason that can be given, and the only true one, is, — The Church is called holy, because it is holy, because every member thereof is holy, though in different degrees, as He that called them is holy. How clear is this! If the Church, as to the very essence of it, is a body of believers, no man that is not a Christian believer can be a member of it. If this whole body be animated by one spirit, and endued with one faith, and one hope of their calling; then he who has not that spirit, and faith, and hope, is no member of this body. It follows, that not only no common swearer, no Sabbath-breaker, no drunkard, no whoremonger, no thief, no liar, none that lives in any outward sin, but none that is under the power of anger or pride, no lover of the world, in a word, none that is dead to God, can be a member of his Church (Works, 3:55). 

And just in case his readers of this pungent and forthright sermon missed the basic truth that the church is holy, Wesley considered this outstanding mark once more, but this time apparently with a measure of exasperation: “Can anything then be more absurd, than for men to cry out, ‘The Church! The Church!’ and to pretend to be very zealous for it, and violent defenders of it, while they themselves have neither part nor lot therein, nor indeed know what the Church is?” 

Albert Outler was well aware of these two basic frameworks that played out in Wesley’s estimation of the church, frameworks that may represent a basic tension in the Father of Methodism’s overall ecclesiology. In other words, in “Of the Church,” Wesley so stressed the holiness of the church that it appeared he was undermining the Augustinian “mixed company” framework that suitably described large national churches, such as his own Church of England, precisely in order to move over to quite a different framework. In his own day, Outler had recognized this significant shift as well and he put it this way: “This is, therefore, an unstable blend of Anglican and Anabaptist ecclesiologies; it is also one of Wesley’s more daring syntheses.” Furthermore, Frank Baker, for his part, in his masterful work John Wesley and the Church of England, expressed this “unstable blend” in a slightly different manner as the difference between “a functional and institutional” conception of the church. Beyond this, Gwang Seok Oh in his John Wesley’s Ecclesiology pointed out that in the end for Wesley “soteriology governs ecclesiology.” In light of these very careful and accurate assessments across the field of Wesley studies, who can doubt the importance that John Wesley himself attached to the mark of holiness in his overall estimation of the church? 

We are slowly getting to a place where we can reframe the recent mistaken judgment of traditionalists offered by revisionists that simply did not ring true and as a consequence unfortunately did much harm. Our burden, of course, is therefore to proceed with greater historical and theological accuracy than the earlier troubled pronouncement was ever willing to embrace. Indeed, such reframing will not only resonate on a very deep level with historic Methodism but will also be in full accord with the grace and witness of the primitive church. However, there are yet a few other pieces of the puzzle that must be put in place before any reframing can occur. 

First of all, revisionists today are repeatedly privileging particular social groups by placing them at the very center of valuation, in which the historical doctrines of the church (Christ, grace, sin, faith, and salvation) are all being reconfigured (though the original vocabulary is retained) to match the newfangled valuation. Second, revisionists are also undermining the salient mark of the church, namely holiness, because the universal call to repentance, the very invitation and gateway to holiness for all people, reflected in the General Rules of the United Societies (leave off evil, do good, use the means of grace) is currently being put aside for particular social groups currently celebrated in North American culture. Add these two moves together and what you have is not only rampant theological confusion but also frank and undeniable idolatry–placing a penultimate value on the throne, at the center of things, where only the ultimate, that is, Almighty God, belongs. Moreover, if a church is no longer open to the call of holiness for all people, without engaging in many rounds of re-visioning first, then the question must be forthrightly raised: “is this even a church any longer”?

Yes, and it’s a resounding “Yes,” God in great mercy and patience accepts us as we are, but the Most High, in sheer goodness and in radiant holiness and love, refuses to leave us as we are. Both are wonderfully true statements. In short, the call to repentance is ever a universal call, since Christ died for all. And all does indeed mean all as Wesley and the early Methodists, as good Arminians, understood so well, especially in the face of the ongoing criticism of their energetic detractors. Indeed, such a theological posture, along with its suffering, has ever been the glory of Methodism–until lately. 

And now for the long awaited reframing: As faithful men and women make their way from a United Methodism (that has apparently abandoned the universal call to repentance, and therefore to forgiveness and holiness as well) to a welcoming Methodist or Wesleyan tradition, whether it be the Global Methodist Church or some other dedicated communion of faith, it is best then to encourage, support and even to praise such faithful disciples of Jesus Christ. In the midst of so many graces, and much holy love, they know how to deny themselves and to take up the cross of Christ afresh and to do so without missing a beat in terms of their powerful, illuminating and gospel-celebrating witness. Accordingly, I praise, honor, and encourage these folk as the genuine brothers and sisters of Christ that they are and remain. 

Kenneth J. Collins is Professor of Historical Theology and Wesley Studies at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, KY, and a member of Firebrand’s editorial board.