i was recently asked to offer my compelling reasons for why i would want to remain in the united methodist church, even as there is division within, a new denomination forming, and an inevitable divorce coming at some point in the future. here was my response:
Why stay United Methodist? My compelling reasons.
It’s home.
For many of us, this is our home. It is the legacy that was handed to us by our great-grandparents, our grandparents, or our parents. It was the community who welcomed us into the world with casseroles on our kitchen tables, and baptism blankets. It was the United Methodists who taught us flannel-board truths and showed us that Jesus loves all the little children: red, yellow, black and white. It was the United Methodists who gave us our first Bibles, who journeyed with us as we learned what it means to confirm the promises of our baptism. It was the United Methodists who affirmed our gifts, who let us ask questions, and who loved us even when we were annoying, antagonistic, and apathetic. For others of us, it might not have been a legacy that was handed to us, but it was a home that we came to; a place that felt like home after a journey of searching. In any case, this is home. Shall we abandon it so easily?
It’s a via media.
Via media means “middle way,” and this has always been a part of the Methodist DNA, from it’s earliest moments. Between the high liturgy of the Church of England and the practical earthiness of Pietism, Methodism was a via media. Between the roots of tradition and the openness to personal experience, Methodism has always been a via media. Between a holiness of heart (works of piety) and a holiness of hands (acts of mercy), Methodism has always been a via media. Between conservatism and progressivism, United Methodist still has the opportunity to remain true to its character: to be a via media who is not defined by its polar extremes, but most alive in the tensions in between. Might we stay true to our DNA, or shall we give way to our cultural tendency to fracture along the poles?
It’s a big tent.
We have never agreed on everything. United Methodism has never been about an orthodoxy in which all adherents must agree to, swear on, or relentlessly defend. No, our approach has long been: “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity.” A tenet of what it means to be United Methodist is that we agree to disagree, while still living in relationship to one another in the community of faith. In fact, the phrase ‘agree to disagree,’ is believed to have come from John Wesley’s disagreement with George Whitfield, and their ability to love alike even if they did not think alike. Can we not, also, love alike?
It’s an open table.
In the end, it’s always been about grace. When Wesley’s heart was strangely warmed, it was because he came to terms, in a new way, with the unthinkable grace of God even for him. Grace has always been our trademark. Even our emphasis on holiness has always been rooted in a grace which allows us to long for closer and deeper relationship with God. This emphasis on grace is seen so clearly in our emphasis on an open table, where we do not distinguish between races, genders, sexualities, backgrounds, languages, experiences, or sins. There is a place for everyone at the table. Would you choose to leave this place for a community which might place restrictions on who is actually welcome at the table? Will we try and limit the limitless grace of God? Or will we draw the circle even wider?
Comments
if you are asking about whether there is more to the WCA/GMC breakoff from the UMC than the issue of same-gender marriage rights, then the answer is yes. there is quite a bit more. i think there is the issue of how we interpret scripture, and how we choose to live in a big tent rather than a walled-off building that is defined by a particular creed.