Agree to Disagree
What would it look like for Christians to agree to disagree in a manner consistent with what John Wesley called "The Catholic Spirit"? Let me begin with a small experience with the Catholic Church.
The Corpus Christi Procession
My wife and I stopped downtown for lunch after chapel on Sunday. On the way out of the city after lunch we had to stop the car to allow the passing of a Catholic parade in honor of Christ's transubstantial presence in the Holy Eucharist. The procession celebrated the Catholic feast of Corpus Christi, or the Solemnity of The Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ.
As the procession passed by us, I hopped out of the car and grabbed these photos with my cell phone. A cross-bearer leads the procession. Beneath the canopy, a monstrance contains the consecrated host, the "substance" of which Catholics believe has become the body of Christ. The bearer of the monstrance is wearing a humeral veil so that he doesn't have to touch the monstrance with his bare hands. In front of the canopy are men swinging a thurible filled with burning incense. (The thurible bearers are known as thurifers. That's not a word you use every day). The Most Reverend Gustavo García-Siller, Archbishop of San Antonio, is walking just behind the canopy. The block-long assembly that followed was singing hymns.
The procession was a very lovely, visible witness to the Catholic faith by Christians whose faith I greatly admire. It was also an event that theologically and institutionally separates me from Rome.
Methodist Articles of Religion
John Wesley retained Article of Religion #28 in the 1622 Book of Common Prayer as the Methodist Article of Religion #18. The article was was aimed squarely at the procession I witnessed.
Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of bread and wine in the Supper of our Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after a heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith. The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshiped.
The article was written in an era when the polemics between Catholics and Protestants were more heated. Some of the language is a bit harsh. You don't make friends by calling their beliefs "repugnant" and their devotional practices "superstitions". Nevertheless, the article captures the crux of a divide that still separates Catholics and many Protestants. However Christ is present in the sacrament of the table, the United Methodist Church doesn't believe his presence requires an invisible change in the substance of the bread.
Me and the Catholic Church
I respect the Catholic Church and consider its members brothers and sisters in Christ. Many of its priests and laity have personally inspired me, comforted me and helped me grow as a Christian. I have adopted some of its practices as my own. I have found that I have a lot to learn from its luminaries, both past and present. My own bishops would often benefit by following the example of their Catholic counterparts. Earlier this year, I attended a prayer luncheon in San Antonio at which Archbishop García-Siller provided an outstanding address. I honestly feel closer to some Catholics and their church than I do to some parts of my own denomination.
So why can't we just agree to disagree on the nature of the Eucharist and live together within one institutional body? Because our differences are not merely theoretical opinions without practical effect. In this case, differences in beliefs about the sacrament lead to a differences in the practices that define us.
In the Catholic Church, the solemnity of the feast of Corpus Christi reflects the central place transubstantiation has in Catholic self-understanding. And the belief in transubtantiation shapes how Catholics practice their faith. On Monday, Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York wrote:
Yesterday's beautiful feast of Corpus Christi (The Body and Blood of Christ) allows us to renew our commitment to making Sunday Mass the priority of our Catholic life, of every parish family.
Almost by definition, a "local option" practice cannot be central. It might be possible for one Christian to venerate the Blessed Sacrament while another does not, or for one congregation to do so while another does not, but not if the sacrament is one of the core things that define the church. For some Protestants churches, the Lord's Supper is just a nice devotional practice. Not for the Catholic Church. Were both to live within the same temporal institution, neither could fully live out its faith.
One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
I love my Catholic brothers and sisters and look upon them as members of Christ's one holy Church, but we have important differences in belief that result in different ways of expressing our faith with our lives. Given our current understanding of the faith I don't think organic union is best for either of us right now.
I don't accept the notion that every institutional boundary represents a sinful division of Christ's body. The "one holy, catholic and apostolic church" I affirm in the Nicene Creed includes Christians who belong to any number of Christian churches. On some things Christians can agree to disagree and still remain in the same temporal institution. On other matters, we must order our temporal lives separately in order to live more faithfully. Boundaries are an organization's way of taking responsibility for its own life and identity. Even those in separate church bodies can still respect each other and embrace each other as kindred.
For those from the Wesleyan heritage, being "catholic" has never been about institutional labels. The boundaries that define church bodies are not an insurmountable obstacle to what Wesley called "the catholic spirit."
The United Methodist Church’s Internal Conflicts
What does all this have to do with United Methodism’s current problems around the issue of sex and marriage?
Given our current difficulties, some are suggesting that we drop the definitive language now present in our Book of Discipline and agree to disagree. Others suggest that a formally negotiated "amicable separation" might allow each party to live out its understanding of the faith more completely by creating two (or more) new institutions. Still others offer “amicable separation light” or a type of federal system, in which the United Methodist Church name remains but a kind of “local option” government exists at the congregational, annual conference, jurisdictional or central conference level. Or perhaps we could allow dissenting congregation to simply leave the denomination with its property and each departing congregation could decide what its associational future might hold.
Each of the proposed solutions has its problems, but what I want to argue against here is the notion that any kind of division is unchristian.
An argument that I sometimes hear is this: all organic divisions are wrong. Christ prayed for unity.
What would a significant change in United Methodist organization do to church unity? There are approximately 2.1 billion Christians in the world. With only 12 million United Methodists worldwide, whatever we do will not significantly affect the state of unity in Christ’s church. United Methodists comprise only about one half of one percent of the world’s Christian people.
Furthermore, I don’t think that United Methodists actually believe that all organic divisions are wrong.
The very existence of the United Methodist Church and other Wesleyan denominations is an indication we believe some theological differences require different institutional expressions of Christ’s one church. Otherwise, we would all be Catholic or Orthodox.
Progressive United Methodists feel a kinship with their progressive cousins in the Episcopal Church, United Church of Christ, Presbyterian Church (USA) or the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, but, we are told, they don’t want to join those non-Wesleyan church bodies. They would lose something essential in the process. Evangelical United Methodists might feel a kinship with their Assembly of God or Baptist brothers and sisters, but neither do they want to join the SBC or the AOG. They would lose something important in their Wesleyan practice. So, already we recognize that some divisions are necessary, no matter how close we feel to those in different church bodies.
And it’s hard for me to see how some of the supposedly non-schismatic alternatives being offered are substantially different from ordinary division. A local option by congregation? Or by geographical jurisdiction? Or ideological jurisdiction? Or by central conference? Or letting dissenting congregations depart? Or making an institutional decision to allow dissidents to ignore church law, which seems to be the case now? These are still a kind of division! Each involves separating one group of Christians from another in faith and practice. Other than retaining the name “United Methodist” (and the common treasury upon which some have come to depend), I don’t see the difference. To me, a division of polity at the "church" level is no different than a similar division at the national, jurisdictional, conference or congregational level.
Finally, I find it hard to take arguments against schism seriously if they are accompanied by arguments against accountability. Organic unity without accountability is no unity at all. It's an illusion.
Each serious proposal for change reorganizes an existing body of Christians to create new institutional forms in which different groups can each live out their understanding of the faith more completely. And I don’t know that that’s bad. However we slice it, the people at any one level of organization have to be able to organize themselves so that their lives correspond with their beliefs.
So what it seems to come down to is this: does the matter before us rise to a level that requires a church body – at any particular level of organization – to be able to live out its vision of faithfulness in its life together?
Can we agree to disagree within our current institutional structure, or do we need to agree to disagree in some other organizational arrangement, one in which we can each live more faithfully in the manner we believe God desires.