A New Way to Be a Family
A New Way to Be a Family
Thoughts on a Methodist Separation
March 31, 2020
“Nothing has been decided yet,” said the United Methodist pastor to her congregation after news of a potential denominational split made headlines when bishops announced an “agreement aimed at separation” (the Protocol).
To some extent, the pastor was right. Nothing has been decided yet, but a separation will likely happen. What hasn’t been decided is how it will happen. The Protocol is one plan among several that have been proposed as a means for the church to separate; elected delegates will vote on these plans at the denomination’s next General Conference (originally scheduled for May 2020, then postponed to August 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic). What makes the Protocol stand out among the other plans is the mediation process that generated it.
Sixteen leaders from opposing factions within the church engaged a renowned mediator to assist them in negotiating terms to resolve the decades-long conflict regarding inclusion of LGBTQ persons. Tension has ramped up as opponents and proponents argue vehemently for their positions and LGBTQ persons bear the brunt of the wounds. In the midst of the turmoil, many of us are reminded of—and convicted by—the first of three General Rules attributed to Methodism’s founder John Wesley: do no harm. This admonition comes even before ‘do good’ and ‘stay in love with God.’ It was in the spirit of doing no more harm that these sixteen leaders entered into their mediation process.
“Nothing has been decided yet.”
These were the words we said to our children after my former husband and I announced our separation.The oldest asked, “So you’re getting divorced?”
“Nothing has been decided yet,” we hastily replied.
To some extent, we were right. Nothing had been decided, but we both knew a divorce would likely happen. We had fundamental differences in how we wanted to live our lives. I had wanted to stay married, though, for the sake of unity; we could pretend all was well, even if it wasn’t. If we divorced, then everyone would know—it would be declared to the world—we could not work things out.
Despite the erosion of the relationship, the tension and tears, and my diminished sense of self, I had wanted to stay together because I presumed my thirty-year marriage provided the structure that held our family together . . . that held me together. Who was I otherwise? Would I even have a place to call home? Would I still be a part of a family?
Some of us are asking similar questions about our church and our place within it. What will it look like for us if the church separates? It is hard to imagine a new way of being in the world, a new way to be a family. There are some who want our church to stay together for the sake of unity. But should the illusion of unity take precedence over doing no harm to one another?
At the end of my marriage, we chose a collaborative process—similar to mediation—where we met face-to-face over a set period of months to negotiate the terms of our divorce. It is incredibly hard work to sit with someone who has deeply wounded you and vow to work collaboratively, to call upon the values you still hold in common to facilitate the dissolution of your union. Neither of us got everything we wanted; we both had to make concessions. But the process saved us from escalating the conflict. It saved us from a prolonged court battle. It saved us from doing any more harm to one another.
Divorce was a death I had tried to avoid at all costs, even the cost of myself. What I discovered out of the ashes, though, was the gift of new life: a new way of being in the world, a new way to be a family.
The participants who developed the Protocol recognized mediation would be a difficult process, and they undertook it anyway. In the midst of their agonizing differences, they chose to sit with one another and call upon their shared values as Christ followers to facilitate a resolution. This is something that none of the rest of us have been able to do, and most likely, will not be able to do. And because of them, we will no longer have to attempt and fail to do, if our delegates approve the Protocol. It doesn’t give any of us everything we want; we all will have to make some concessions. But it saves us from perpetuating conflict. It saves us from doing more harm to one another.
The developers of the Protocol have given us a gift that enables us to imagine a new life for our church. It calls us to claim the hope that can come from their pain-filled mediation process that facilitates the separation of our institutional structure, yet also frees us—the Body of Christ—to be who we are called to be in and for the world.
*This essay was originally published January 30, 2020 on Collegeville Institute’s Bearings Online as part of a three-part feature on the possible Methodist separation (https://collegevilleinstitute.org/bearings/the-methodist-split-in-three-parts/).