How Did it Become So Easy to Get Out of a United Church?

In the United States, we put “the union” in USA. We are as much a republic as France, though we are still in our first iteration (some say Lincoln started our second republic) and the French are up to five. But in a few weeks, POTUS will deliver not “The State of the Republic” but “The State of the Union.” Union matters in part because the Civil War was so traumatic (and deadly). To consider separating from the U.S. is tantamount to the sin of schism. And yet Scotland can hold a referendum on leaving the UK or Britain can do the same to vote on leaving the European UNION! and no one fights a war to protect such unions, maybe because no one like an Abraham Lincoln was around to call these political arrangements “perpetual.”

The effects of political union on Christianity in the United States has been huge. Soon after the Civil War the Old and New School Presbyterian churches in the north reunited, with a large part of the rationale coming from imitating the Union. That merger launched a wave of ecumenical affiliations and networks that resulted in the Federal Council of Churches (1908) and a proposal to unite all Protestant communions in one United Church of the United States (comparable to the United Church of Canada). “United” has been a common part of Protestant church names, Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, Presbyterian Church in the United States, United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, the United Churches of Christ, the United Reformed Churches, and the United Methodist Church.

Now comes word that the Methodists are about to break apart into two denominations, one traditionalist (at least about marriage and sex) and one progressive (at least about marriage and sex). All it takes these days is a vote. No theological battles, no warring pamphlets. No one has even mentioned the s-word of schism. Although, Episcopalians still do not look favorably on leaving the Anglican communion.

If J. Gresham Machen had tried that back in the 1920s, he would (and did) have faced charges of disloyalty, unfaithfulness, and disobedience. In fact, when he called for a separation of conservatives and liberals, it was as if he had suggested Social Security should be privatized:

whether or not liberals are Christians, it is at any rate perfectly clear that liberalism is not Christianity. And that being the case, it is highly undesirable that liberalism and Christianity should continue to be propagated within the bounds of the same organization. A separation between the two parties in the Church is the crying need of the hour.

Many indeed are seeking to avoid the separation. Why, they say, may not brethren dwell together in unity? The Church, we are told, has room both for liberals and for conservatives. The conservatives may be allowed to remain if they will keep trifling matters in the background and attend chiefly to “the weightier matters of the law.” And among the things thus designated as “trifling” is found the Cross of Christ, as a really vicarious atonement for sin.

Such obscuration of the issue attests a really astonishing narrowness on the part of the liberal preacher. (Christianity and Liberalism)

Something is changing out there. The old liberal internationalist order is breaking up. The election of Donald Trump was one sign, Brexit was another. The change also is having effects on the ecclesiastical world.

5 thoughts on “How Did it Become So Easy to Get Out of a United Church?

  1. Note that the Methodist divorce was brokered by a Jewish (secularized?) lawyer. 1 Cor. 6, anybody?


  2. Something is changing out there. The old liberal internationalist order is breaking up. The election of Donald Trump was one sign, Brexit was another. The change also is having effects on the ecclesiastical world.

    You have to have a set of shared assumptions and purposes for unity. There is no point to a union for its own sake; neither is there is a point in drawing out a divorce. Rip off the bandaid and move forward. Machen was just early.


  3. Walt, a worthy read or two on this subject might be Gene Veith’s, “Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview”, 1993, and his “Post-Modern Times: A Christian Guide to Contemporary Thought and Culture”, 1994. Sifting through these works one gets the sense that the same philosophers of the late Enlightenment period such as Kant and Nietzsche who pushed Rationalism and Pragmatism (and Nihilism) along with Martin Heidegger who fed the growth of fascism between WW1 and WW2 got us partially to this point. Furthered by the French types such as Foucault and Derrida who pushed Deconstructionism and we have “post modernism,” this warped view of reality that leads to “tribalism” or “group think” and lays the ground work for where we are today. The problem with the “elites” is that these things have gone so far in that direction that even they don’t know what to do with it.


  4. George,

    The church seems to do little more than cooperate with the latest intellectual fads. If only there were a counterculture. Instead, what we’re going to get is more of these people like Augustus Invictus Sol, Jack Donovan, and other neopagans whose archetypal hero is someone like Sargon of Akkad (Nimrod). We’ve pushed the Christian God out so pagan gods are coming back in. I wonder what this might mean for consensus and getting things done together.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.