Talking schism

I AGREE with O. Wesley Allen Jr. ("Let's talk theology," June 15): we must discuss theology. At the risk of oversimplifying the debate on schism in the United Methodist Church, I note that we see the same pattern in other denominations as well. We are observing large-scale divisions of Christians into two groups: those that interpret the Bible literally and those that interpret the Bible metaphorically. Assuming these two approaches serve as foundations for all theological decisions, I think it unlikely that their adherents will ever find common ground.

Carol Tiffin James

Ellsworth, Maine

It is fascinating to read Allen's argument for division within the United Methodist Church. While more immediate gratification can come by separation and being with people of "like mind," it's likely that the long-term consequences of such action will only produce more power systems of exclusion and violence. Although difficult, staying at the table together is the only responsible way for the church and for the world.

Nancy G. Neelley

Hillcrest UMC,

Nashville, Tenn.

Though I disagree with Allen's desire to see the United Methodist Church ordain and marry homosexuals, I agree with virtually everything else he says. I too am surprised that it is the conservatives rather than the liberals who support an official schism. While the issue of homosexuality is not enough to divide the denomination, it is a symptom of a deeper theological split. My strongest area of agreement is with Allen's proposal that moderates take the lead in discussing both the theological and potential ecclesiastical division of the UMC.

Although biblical authority and interpretation is one underlying issue, debate over this issue has led us to our current impasse. I propose, as a moderate, that we discuss a different issue: the Trinity.

Both the World Council of Churches and the National Council of Churches have made acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity the sine qua non of membership. This makes sense both historically and theologically. As well as being theologically sound, this debate would have the practical advantage of breaking down the entrenched battle lines that have been created over the past 30plus years. If the debate were over trinitarian versus unitarian theology, rather than homosexuality or even biblical authority, people of opposing "sides" would find themselves on the same page. It might highlight the differences between fundamentalists and orthodox.

In proposing his "amicable divorce," Bill Hinson offered weariness as the rationale for the suggestion. But Christ's command to forgive 70 times seven, and his strictness on forbidding divorce among his disciples, suggests that giving up on a relationship because it is tiring is not a Christian option.

Yet that does not mean we must stay together at 'all costs. A debate on the Trinity should make it obvious whether we should stay together or divide, and if we divide, where the fissure lines should be drawn.

In a speech at the Iliff School of Theology in 2002, Joe Sprague claimed that belief in a bodily resurrection, and belief that Jesus is the second person of the Trinity, constitute "idolatry." He advocated an Adoptionist theology--i.e., that Christ obtained the title of Christ by his obedience to God's will. Concerning atonement, Sprague said, "The concept of a blood sacrifice is superstition at best and an idolatrous allegiance to a non-Jesus methodology of God." Sprague sees it as iris mission to rescue the church from such idolatry.

Those of us who are orthodox--i.e., trinitarian---consider these "idolatries" to be the heart of the gospel. We want to persuade as many people as possible to accept these doctrines as the truth. Such differences of belief are truly irreconcilable. What Sprague counts as success, the orthodox count as apostasy; what orthodoxy counts as success, Sprague counts as idolatry. No amount of love and acceptance can overcome these mutually exclusive beliefs.

Mike Macdonald

Broad Street, United Methodist Church,

Mooresville, N. C.

I see no difference between the debate over homosexuality and other social debates we have dealt with as United Methodists. Should we have divided during the civil rights era? We certainly did not "have it altogether" theologically at that time any more than we do now. And there was a huge gap ha the church over the Vietnam war and no theological consensus. The same could be said regarding other issues.

We did divide over slavery, then reunited. In the process we created nearly more problems than we could overcome---namely, the Central Jurisdiction.

I am thankful for theologians, and homiletics professors as well. But being so self-conscious regarding "getting it right" in order to stay together or have co-denominations (bad idea) isn't helpful. Sometimes in the church, as in the family, you simply live with your differences, hopefully live through them, and preserve church unity and avoid the scandal of another schism in Christ's church.