In just a few months, if the variety of caucus groups that have participated in the formation of the “Protocol of Reconciliation and Grace through Separation” are successful in their legislative move, The United Methodist Church will have split into at least two denominations. One will be “progressive” and will retain the name “UMC” and one will be “traditional” with a new name to be developed later.

The reason for this split is a disagreement over how Methodists should understand the relationship of God’s goodness to sexuality. Specifically, the current language of the Book of Discipline states that same-sex behavior is not a good gift from God, but a sin that removes people from God’s goodness. This is the traditional stance. Progressives disagree with this stance and state that not only the behavior, but an LGBTQ+ identity, is a good gift from God.

The disagreement is so severe and has caused so much harm for so long (since 1972) that parties on both sides of the debate have agreed the denomination cannot continue as is. It must separate so that those who hold each position can organize themselves apart from each other and engage more fully in mission without the distraction of battling for the other side to come around to its view of sexuality.

The logic of the protocol for separation is fundamentally missional. Items C and D in the protocol’s Statement of Principles explain:

• Whereas, The United Methodist Church and its members are at an impasse, the Church’s witness and mission is being impeded, and the Church itself as well as its members have been injured;
• Whereas, The United Methodist Church and its members have a deep desire to fulfill our long-stated mission to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.

The question I have not heard addressed is whether this solution will be missionally successful. Recent studies suggest some significant hurdles the two separate denominations will face at least in the United States right from the start. If they want to be effective missionally, they need to begin developing plans to address these now.

Progressive Irreligion

The main problem that progressive Methodists will face is that their primary mission field will be other people who hold to progressive beliefs in the United States. Yet, this group is the least interested in, and even most actively resistant to, religion.

There is a great deal of data to support this claim, some of which I have covered in previous blogs. A more recent bit of data from Pew continues to confirm it:

It is the blue line on the bottom graph that is most interesting here. When Democrats (who Pew have shown to be liberal or liberal leaning in many previous studies) were asked about how much control those who are not religious have over the Democratic Party, only 15% said “too much.” This compares to 25% who said “too little” and 58% who said “about the right amount.”

A second graph is even starker. It shows that Democrats are against religion in public life, and that 25% even think that the decline of religion in the United States is a good thing.

The point here is that people in the broader culture who tend progressive/liberal/Democratic trend toward desiring less religion, especially in politics. This runs counter to the highly politicized “prophetic” religion often championed by progressive United Methodists. If the post-GC 2020 progressive Methodists hope to be missionally effective, they will need to contend with the very difficult mission field they are dedicating themselves to address.

Traditional Echo Chambers

While the above graphs show that Republicans are more supportive of religion in public life and more open to Christians in Republican leadership, this does not mean that post-GC 2020 traditional Methodists will have an easy way ahead.

It is the red line in the top graph that we are most focused on here. It shows that most Republicans worship in a church where they are certain that their clergy are also Republican. This may not seem too problematic, but it does suggest a tendency toward homogeneity of belief among more conservative Christians. This is reinforced by the red line on the bottom graph, which shows much higher agreement among Republican congregants and their clergy when discussing political issues.

Study after study has pointed to the increasing level of social and political progressivism among especially the younger generations in the United States. This certainly holds true related to long-standing social issues like abortion and marriage equality. They also are demanding action on items such as climate change and a reduction of gun violence, items that have not been a strong suit for Republicans.

If the post-GC 2020 traditional church is to succeed, it will need to find a way to move beyond its internal comfort and agreement. It will need to grapple with the issues that are being presented as the primary concerns of the new generations in the United States, and it will need to be ready to meet people with real answers as to how the traditional Christian faith can meet the serious existential and political questions of the day.

For Both – Apathy toward the Church

Perhaps the most daunting issue that the church has to face is not resistance, but apathy. A growing number of people simply do not see the importance of the church in society.

While the majority of respondents in this graph signal that they believe religion is broadly a good thing, helping build American society, strengthening morals, and bringing people together, the looming statistic on the other end of each line speaks to how many people just don’t think religion matters. This is especially stark related to morality.

Each new post-GC 2020 Methodist denomination may feel it won a moral and theological victory in being free to chart its own course. The very real question that the members of each then needs to ask itself is: does anyone else even care?