The Global Methodist Church is Happening: A Reflection on Division

On Monday, March 1, the Wesleyan Covenant Association (WCA) created a bit of a stir on social media when it announced the name and symbol of a new church. Even more controversial was a declaration that, one way or the other, the Global Methodist Church is happening. Ideally, the new denomination will launch as a result of finalizing the protocol for separation. However, in their strongest statement to date, the leaders of the WCA made clear that, even if centrists and progressives in the present United Methodist Church fail to honor the protocol, the Global Methodist Church will soon become a reality. There will be no interminable delay. The days of the General Conference filibuster are over.  

Not surprisingly, conservative United Methodists celebrated the announcement on various social media platforms. Expressions of weariness with the political process and an eagerness to move forward were common. Some went so far as to change their social media profile pics to the symbol of the new denomination, a Trinitarian image consisting of three interlocking circles with a cross in the middle.

Reactions from United Methodist centrists and progressives were interesting, to say the least. Many seemed caught off guard by the announcement of the new denomination’s name and symbol. This reaction would be more understandable had the WCA been working in secret. But that has not been the case. Things like a draft Book of Doctrines and Discipline have been available for viewing on the WCA’s website for months. There has been nothing secretive about the intentions or plans of conservative United Methodists. They have made it clear for some time now that they will soon be leaving the United Methodist Church.

With the unveiling of a new name and symbol, it would appear that reality is finally setting in. One indication of this is the extent to which centrists and progressives attacked the coming Global Methodist Church. For starters, many attacked the name, insisting that this new church would be little more than another American denomination. In other words, it would be “global” in name only. Frankly, this criticism is silly. If anything, the global membership of the new church will be considerably larger than the American membership. And there is no evidence whatsoever that a new Global Methodist Church will restrict episcopal and other forms of church leadership and governance to America. Furthermore, insinuations that the global membership of this new denomination will simply be parroting the conservative cultural agenda of a wealthier American church whose financial support they covet impugns the intellectual and moral integrity of Methodists outside America. Such insinuations are not just insulting; they are dehumanizing. The irony is not to be lost. 

In addition to attacking the name of the new church, many centrists and progressives accused it of hypocrisy and exclusion. They expressed outrage that the new church’s draft Discipline says that all people will be welcome but then goes on to oppose gay marriage and ordination. Many say that this new church is singling out one particular issue as sinful, and that it will no doubt turn its head on many other forms of sin, including divorce, for example. Again, there is much silliness here. For starters, there is simply no evidence that the Global Methodist Church will take divorce or any other sin lightly. The fact that divorce and other sins have been prevalent in American culture or even in American churches in the recent past in no way constitutes evidence that a new church will sweep such things under the rug. The important distinction here has to do with whether or not people are repentant for their sin and genuinely seek forgiveness and reconciliation both with God and with all whom their sin may have harmed. The coming Global Methodist Church has simply made it clear that it regards homosexual acts as sinful. But it regards many other things as sinful, too. And I am confident that it will refuse to ordain or continue in ordination anyone who knowingly persists in sin, regardless of what the sin might be. For example, I don’t think for one minute that the new church will ordain people who persist in lying, stealing, or adultery. So, the hypocrisy charge doesn’t hold. Nor does the charge of exclusion. The new denomination welcomes all sinners to the journey of repentance, reconciliation, and sanctification. Provided that people embark upon and make serious progress in that journey, there will be no impediments to full participation in the life of the church, including ordination. If there is a difference, then it is simply in what the Global Methodist Church regards as sin. But that is hardly news.   

At this stage, I am tempted to say that there is nothing to see here. The recent announcement by the WCA simply put a name and symbol to an already existing reality. But names and symbols matter, in part because they make it easier to identify with the realities that they represent or toward which they gesture or point. Thus, some conservative Methodists were quick to use the symbol for the coming Global Methodist Church as their profile pic on social media platforms. This is perfectly natural and to be expected. Fans of sports teams plaster the names and logos of the teams for which they cheer on their cars, their homes, and even their bodies (in the form of clothing and tattoos). But names and symbols also make it easier to focus one’s hatred of others. For example, in longstanding sports rivalries, it is not uncommon to see fans desecrating the symbol or logo of a hated rival through the public burning of a rival’s colors or, in what can only be described as a perfect blend of capitalism and crassness, the use of a rival team’s name and logo on rolls of toilet paper.  

The Global Methodist Church is happening. That much is now clear. United Methodists who think that they can find a way to stave off separation are living in a fantasyland. The only question is how we are going to regard and speak of one another going forward. Will we act like drunken hooligans at a sporting event and desecrate one another’s names and symbols? Or will we recognize one another as brothers and sisters in Christ who strenuously disagree with one another over human sexuality? The early returns suggest that at least some of us will go the former route, but I would like to make an earnest plea for the latter. 

Division and deep disagreement are painful. There is no way around that. But we do not have to resort to scorched earth caricatures of one another. Such tactics always do far more harm than good. And while we may think we are only harming the enemy, our “side” (whichever side that might be) will not go unscathed. Anger, resentment, and bitterness have a way of poisoning every well. In the worst cases, our inability or refusal to identify common ground or a higher good amid our differences can be deadly. Consider the “troubles” in Ireland, or the long-standing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In both cases, all either side has to show for the demonization of the other are grieving widows and orphans. 

The Global Methodist Church is happening. But this is not the first time that Christians have divided from one another. Far from it! The reality is that the global church has experienced painful divisions almost from the word go. Many of these divisions have persisted for hundreds, even thousands of years. For example, consider the divisions that followed the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451. The churches that did not accept the decisions of the Council (the so-called Oriental churches) went their separate ways. Fifteen hundred years later, they are still with us. They are still worshipping the Triune God, still preaching and teaching the Gospel, and in some cases still suffering oppression and martyrdom. Or consider the Great Schism over the filioque clause in A.D. 1054. Broadly speaking, this disagreement resulted in the division of the global church into Eastern and Western or Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches. A thousand years later, both “sides” are still with us. They are still worshipping the Triune God, preaching and teaching the Gospel, and in some cases still suffering oppression and martyrdom. 

The point of mentioning these previous divisions is not to normalize or justify division, but to try to gain some long-range perspective. In the immediate aftermath of the Reformation, Roman Catholics and Protestants often took to killing one another. The Gospel, and the world, was much worse off for it. Fast-forward 400 years, and the ecumenical movement, which I recently wrote about in Firebrand, has resulted in numerous bilateral agreements between Protestant churches and the Roman Catholic Church, as well as the previously unthinkable Joint Declaration on Justification. We are closer to one another now than we ever have been, and both the cause of the Gospel and the welfare of the world is better off because of it.  

The Global Methodist Church is happening. There is no papering over our differences. Convictions run all the way to the bottom on both sides. Centrist and progressive United Methodists believe that the Global Methodist Church will do great harm to LGBTQ+ persons and communities. The Global Methodist Church believes that it will serve LGBTQ+ persons and communities by speaking the truth about God’s intentions and purposes related to human sexuality. These are irreconcilable differences, but no more so than the differences between Antiochene and Alexandrian Christians during and after Chalcedon, or between Orthodox and Roman Catholic Christians during and after the Great Schism, or between Roman Catholics and Protestants during and after the Reformation. 

A potential difference between the present division within Methodism and these other (arguably much bigger) divisions in church history is that we have a chance to learn from the way our ancestors in the faith responded to disagreement and division. At an absolute minimum, we can agree not to kill one another. But perhaps we can set the bar a little higher than that. Perhaps we can agree not to act like drunken hooligans, cursing one another’s names and burning and desecrating one another’s symbols. Better still, perhaps we can agree not to wait 400, 1,000, or even 1,500 years to begin respecting and honoring one another as brothers and sisters in Christ. We are fellow members of the body of Christ who disagree deeply with one another. We can and should acknowledge one another’s baptisms. We can and should pray for one another. We can and should speak well of one another as often as possible. We can and should allow that the Holy Spirit is at work in one another’s churches, however difficult that may be for some of us to see at the present moment.

Finally, when it comes to division in the church, there is no going back. We simply cannot undo history. Chalcedon happened. The Great Schism happened. The Reformation happened. Methodism happened. And now, the Global Methodist Church is happening. All of these divisions have damaged and continue to damage the church’s witness. Division and disunity are not to be celebrated. Conservative United Methodists should not be doing victory laps. Centrist and progressive United Methodists should not be demonizing those who, for conscience’s sake, will soon become members of the Global Methodist Church. We should all be repenting for the damage that this division, like so many other divisions before it, will do to the collective witness of the church catholic. Having said this, the world is no stranger to division and disunity. On the contrary, we are up to our eyeballs in division. Democrats and Republicans. Sunnis and Shias. Nationalists and globalists. Capitalists and socialists. And on and on. What the world hasn’t seen is a group of people who disagree so strongly with one another that political separation is a mutually acknowledged necessity and yet go on loving and honoring one another in the name of a higher good. In the case of the church, that higher good is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Dr. Jason E. Vickers is Professor of Theology at Asbury Theological Seminary. He serves on the Editorial Board for Firebrand.