The nature and demands of Christian unity are naturally part of the discussion. (If Jesus was talking about institutional unity above all else, there should be no UMC in the first place.) But the Separation Protocol is, after all, the divorce papers on a long and troubled denominational marriage. Of course, the reason for a Separation Protocol is that we are currently unified in only the most superficial definitions of the word. Jesus prayed for it and the Holy Spirit, Paul says, brings it. (Unity = nice, Disunity = not nice.) Second, the category of unity carries theological weight. First, unity falls under a larger ethos of “niceness” that has become part of our United Methodist DNA. To: “What denominational alignment best reflects the values of Christian unity?“įraming the debate around unity is a powerful one-two punch for those hoping to hold the UMC substantially together through the Feinberg separation process. Here we explore how issues surrounding separation may be framed (more or less helpfully) for the local church. How the questions are posed will almost certainly affect the outcome. If they haven’t already, congregations will want to move toward consensus on their future. It is a poor leader who waits for a high-profile, controversial, and politically-charged vote to determine the future. As Mark Twain popularized, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” Or, elsewhere, “Figures don’t lie… but liars figure.”Īll this is so very relevant for United Methodists as congregations begin to think about their options under the Feinberg Separation Protocol. Responses to leading/loaded questions can be distilled into “data” that appear so definite. That is why we have learned to be wary of surveys. Do you still kick your dog? Circle one: YES NO

Frazer umc