This is the second in a series of posts that I originally wrote as a way to reflect on and process my experiences serving in and leaving the United Methodist Church. These were not originally intended for others to read, but I know there are others who are just beginning to process their own experiences. It is my hope that others will be comforted in knowing that this season has been hard for many others as well. You can read the first post here.
“But although a difference in opinions or modes of worship may prevent an entire external union; yet need it prevent our union in affection? Though we cannot think alike, may we not love alike? May we not be of one heart, though we are not of one opinion? Without all doubt we may. Herein all the children of God may unite, notwithstanding these smaller differences. These remaining as they are, they may forward one another in love and in good works”
John Wesley, Catholic Spirit
The separation of the United Methodist Church (UMC) continues as another wave of special annual conference sessions will soon gather across the United States. A quote by Methodist founder, John Wesley, continues to be used by those who would hope to keep clergy and congregations within the UMC fold. In his sermon Catholic Spirit, Wesley writes: “Though we cannot think alike, may we not love alike? May we not be of one heart, though we are not of one opinion?” We would all do well to heed his words as a call to humility, civility, and goodwill. However, many of those who offer these words from Wesley seek to persuade UMC clergy and laity that differences over sexual ethics, sex and gender, the nature of Scripture, and accountability to core Christian doctrine are not things to divide the denomination over. The UMC is a “big tent” with “room for everyone”, so we should stay united even if we disagree. United Methodists should stay together to love alike, even as they do not think alike, in the spirit of John Wesley.
My purpose here is not to dispute the general call to unity in the UMC. I will have another post on the difficult realities that make unity in any meaningful sense impossible for too many Methodists to ignore. My argument is that the popular use of Wesley’s words as described above is a misuse and even deception of Wesley’s meaning in his sermon. To be sure, many use the quotation with good intentions. However, an examination of Catholic Spirit will enlighten Wesley’s actual intent and provide wisdom for those discerning in this long season of separation.
First, the expanded quotation you find at the top of this post gives us the context for Wesley’s words. He is addressing how Christians already worshiping in separate denominations or traditions should show Christian love towards one another. However else one might interpret Wesley, it is not the case that he is arguing against having different expressions of the faith. That there are diverse expressions of the Church is a given. In fact, Wesley argues against imposing one’s own preferences on another and for allowing each Christian to follow her/his conscience, which naturally leads to a diversity of Christian communities. Therefore, when speakers use the quotation to argue against separation of the UMC it is at least a misuse of Wesley’s words.
Second, the category of opinions Wesley is speaking of in Catholic Spirit is not the same as the conflicts the UMC is dealing with. Again, the reader can see the context in the expanded quotation. Wesley is referring to “opinions or modes of worship.” Elsewhere in the sermon he names opinions on the practice of baptism, communion, prayer, and forms of church government. Wesley lifts up these things as “smaller points” of practice that Christians need not allow to be barriers to Christian love and ministry partnership across traditions. These examples of diversity of practice are not like the content of the debates the UMC has been engaged in for decades. Even more, Wesley warns against “unsettledness of thought” in regards to the “main branches of Christian doctrine.” To elicit Wesley’s authority in the tradition and suggest the use of the quotation in question is relevant to the nature of the disagreements in the UMC is deceptive, in my view.
Finally, Wesley’s call to love alike is not an appeal for indifference to the opinions of other Christians. For Wesley, love is not synonymous with the live and let live mentality expressed by some contemporary speakers of Wesley’s words. Leaders and those with influence in the UMC envision a fellowship that allows for a variety of doctrinal commitments and practice without any expectation of accountability. The idea that Christians in different traditions would not hold each other accountable to Christian doctrine and holy living is expressly rejected by Wesley, let alone among Christians in the same tradition. In part, Wesley instructs that to love is to “provoke me to love good works”, ‘speaking to me, in love, whatever thou believest to be for my soul’s health”, “‘smite me friendly, and reprove me’”, and “spare not, whatever thou believest may conduce, either to the amending of my faults, strengthening my weakness, the building me up in love, or making me more fit, in any kind, for the Master’s use!” To use Wesley’s words to discourage spurring one another on to holiness and perfect love is exactly the opposite of Wesley’s Catholic Spirit and his teaching generally.
There are theological, institutional, and sentimental arguments to be made for remaining with the continuing United Methodist Church. Those considering separation from the UMC should not ignore them. Yet, one should be wary of those who employ “Though we cannot think alike, may we not love alike?” for their cause. If one is uniformed enough or willing to conscript Wesley’s authority while in conflict with his meaning, he or she should expect to be greeted with skepticism towards their position.