Here’s the problem with splitting up the United Methodist Church: the medium is the message.
Those who are familiar with Marshall McLuhan will recognize his famous phrase, “the medium is the message.” It means that we cannot separate a message from the medium that is used to deliver that message. Whenever we choose a medium, there will be an implicit message in it, whether we acknowledge this or not. The media that we use to communicate have embedded in them biases or messages that are all their own, regardless of what we might be trying to communicate through them.
If we choose Twitter for example, to convey our message, we have also limited what our message can be: it can only be 140 characters. Therefore, the message cannot be of much deep substance if it is only 140 characters. If we use Twitter for a medium, we have automatically chosen as our audience those who feel comfortable navigating the world of social media. Therefore, no matter what we actually tweet, we have already sent a certain message. In some ways, the message is irrelevant; the main thing we have communicated is in the medium we have chosen. Marshal McLuhan actually said that the content of any medium has about as much importance as the stenciling on the case of an atomic bomb. Let the reader understand: I say this as someone who regularly uses social media, but I do try to recognize its limitations.
McLuhan’s insight has enormous implications for the church. For example, if we think we can celebrate the Eucharist online, we have already sent a message about our Eucharistic theology through the medium we have chosen to use. I would suggest that in choosing the medium of the internet to celebrate the Eucharist, we have sent a message of an impoverished sacramental theology that is not sufficiently incarnational or communal. I would suggest in fact that the message in this case cannot help but be gnostic and individualistic, based on the medium that has been chosen. I am aware that some will disagree with me. Some might say that the medium of the internet actually sends a message that we want to make the Eucharist more accessible and therefore more of a means of grace. I could carry on that discussion in another forum, but for now, what I want to emphasize is that whatever medium we choose, we cannot avoid the fact that the medium already carries with it a message. (We can dispute what that message is later.)
In the wake of significant disagreements over human sexuality that threaten the unity of the church, the General Conference of the United Methodist Church meeting in May of 2016 asked its bishops to form a commission on a way forward. There is much speculation about the possibility and even the probability of the United Methodist Church splitting into two or three or more denominations based on differing views of human sexuality. The purpose of this essay is not to speculate on how the commission might suggest various ways forward for the people of the United Methodist Church, but to underline the theological problems that would attend any schism in the UMC. It is not the case that we could simply divide the church according to different understandings of homosexuality and then keep proclaiming the same message with respect to everything else. It is rather the case that if we engage in a schism, we are already changing our message by embodying the very sorts of divisions that Christ came to heal.
In his essay, “A People in the World,” John Howard Yoder asserted that:
The work of God is the calling of a people, whether in the Old Covenant or the New. The church is then not simply the bearer of the message of reconciliation, in the way the newspaper or a telephone company can bear any message with which it is entrusted. Nor is the church simply the result of a message, as an alumni association is the product of a school or the crowd in the theater is the product of the reputation of the film. That men and women are called together to a new social wholeness is itself the work of God, which gives meaning to history.In this assertion, Yoder is essentially taking McLuhan’s insight and applying it to the church. For the church, the medium is the message. It is not so much that we have a message and then we later as a separate act proclaim that message. Rather, the church is itself the message of God. I am aware that this assertion reflects a very high ecclesiology, but keep in mind that although it might sound Roman Catholic, it actually comes from an Anabaptist, so it could find a home among Methodists.
Some may think that the argument over homosexuality is so cumbersome and so tedious and so distracting that we would all be better off if we would just divide the church up into two or three separate denominations. Then each one would be free to proclaim its own message unhindered. I want to suggest that it would not be that simple. To think along these lines would be to violate the warning that McLuhan and Yoder have issued.
For in dividing up the church into two or three denominations, we would not only be changing the medium of who is proclaiming the gospel, we would also be changing the message. The message of the gospel is that Jesus is Lord, and He therefore relativizes all differences among his followers. So if we split up the church we are essentially saying that we are not united, we would be embodying the very things that Christ’s death was supposed to have destroyed. We would be saying that differences over homosexuality are more determinative than our common allegiance to Jesus Christ as Lord. We would be not only changing the medium (that is the form that the church takes), but we would also be changing the very message of the gospel. The church is called not simply to proclaim a message about reconciliation, but to BE a message, God’s message of reconciliation to the world. If we change our medium by splitting the church up into two, three, or more denominations, we have already thereby sent a message to the world, and it’s not a good one.
Jesus himself came not simply to deliver a message from God, but to BE himself the very presence of God. His message was his medium, and his medium was his message. So the calling of the people called Methodists is not simply to proclaim the message of reconciliation, but to embody the message of reconciliation, and we cannot do that if our very form betrays what we are trying to proclaim. Our form and our content, our medium and our message must be consistent. This is what I have learned from McLuhan and Yoder.
I am not sure what this might mean for the work of the bishops’ Commission or for the future of the United Methodist Church. I would hope we can find a way forward without splitting up from each other and thereby reflecting the brokenness of our world. I would hope we can find a way forward that would reflect and embody the Lordship of Christ who has broken down the dividing walls and made reconciliation possible. I myself am a traditionalist when it comes to matters of human sexuality, but I can live together with those who disagree with me, if we share a common commitment to the Lordship of Christ and our Wesleyan theological heritage (which of course includes a robust commitment to the great gospel essentials of Incarnation, Resurrection, and Trinity).
For now, I want to emphasize that if we break up the UMC according to different sexuality camps, we are not only changing our medium, we are also changing (and significantly weakening) our message.
Thanks for this Allan. Some good ideas here. However, I can not help but denominationalism as already inacting the fragmentation of which the author fears. The only way I can see the author's argument being convincing is if one assumes that the UMC is the only embodiment of 'true Christianity'. In that case, the author's fear over the fragmentation brought about by the 'media' fragmentation (multiple Methodist churches of some kind) is valid.
However, if the media fragmentation of which the author fears has already taken place (vis-a-vis Protestant denominationalism) then an additional split does not impact its unity - particularly since there has never, ever been a singular, unified, manifestation of Christian faith in its entire 2000 year history...
While not convinced by the author's argument I am in concert with his desire for the church to live out its faith as an incarnational representation of the unity to which Jesus calls his bride.
Hi Terence, I do not believe that the UMC is the only embodiment of true Christianity, and I acknowledge that the church is already in a state of fragmentation due to the Protestant Reformation and also the schism of 1054. My desire is that the UMC not add to the already existing state of fragmentation through further schism. With each split, there is less and less unity. My hope is that there would be fewer splits, so that we might move closer to unity.
Given Yoder's later discovered behavior, there's a certain potent irony to this quote, but overall a great article.
My obervation has been that for many denominations, mainline and otherwise, that the observation of the rituals of the sect (whether liturgy or inerrant, fiery prooftexting) have overtaken and consumed the relational space of coming together in conflict within wholeness, love, and grace.
Jonathan, you make an excellent argument here. I'd like your permission to republish this post on United Methodist Insight. Please respond to firstname.lastname@example.org. Thank you! Cynthia Astle
Jonathan, thanks for sharing this post. I look forward to thinking upon this for several days. As an ordained UMC elder, I was immediately drawn to the sentiment and theology, and the desire to not lessen the truth of the message of the healing power of the Cross and the Resurrection. I also thought too how if we can not engage within the church body when we think differently, then how much more will we not be able to engage the hurting world.
I want to address and respectively disagree with the underlying asertation throughout this peice. The concept of unity presented by this author and several of the commentors, I believe is mistaken. To say that any seperation based on disagrement is not an expmple of unity is unsound at best. Lock step agreement and complete agreement on all things or the subjegating of dissenting ideas in the name of unifying is not unity it is uniformity. This thinking results in the (to quote the author here) medium being in itself a terrible message.
If uniformity is desired then we are already sending a message of fear of seperation. I do not believe and I would imagine most Christians as well that we folow a God of fear. As such why is scism such a bad thing if we can seperate in a peaceful way that allows us to demonstrate that absolute agreement is not the final goal of the church. We are sent to bring the world to Christ and if they see a church walking lock step in all things even though we are obviously human they will see the lie for what it is. We can disagree and still have unity. I will point to the Apostle Paul and his discussion of the church as the body. I know for certian that my own body is not always in complete agreement and will act against itself many times but yet in the end it will act in concert to the calling of the head (mind). that is how I see the various divisions of the church, we are all parts of the body and serve one unifying purpose yet we will often disagee and act in vary different ways. However, when focused on the head's (Christ's) purpose we act as one.
I don't fear scism in the United Methodist Church because I trust Christ witht he life of his church. If that is the way forward then so be it and amen. As long as we do so by recognizing the different parts of the body and remind ourselves to seek the guidence of the head then 'this too shall pass'.
If the medium is the message then the mesage needs to be that we can disagree and even seperate on some level but with Christ we are still united in the purpose of "Making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world". Now that is good news.
Post a Comment