This week the front page of the e-edition of the New York Times prominently featured two religion stories, each in its own way about whether the church will fully accept LGBTQ people and same-sex marriage. The lead story was the pope’s decision to allow priests to bless same-sex unions (“Pope Francis Allows Priests to Bless Same-Sex Unions,” by Jason Horowitz, The New York Times, December 18, 2023). Just under it was a story by Ruth Graham on the breakup of the United Methodist Church (“With a Deadline Looming, the United Methodist Church Breaks Up,” The New York Times, December 18, 2023). Each story has something to teach us.

I’ll start with the Methodists. Since 2019, the United Methodist Church has permitted congregations to leave the denomination “for reasons of conscience,” and allowed them to take their property and other assets with them. The window for leaving ends soon, on the last day of 2023. A little more than a quarter of United Methodist congregations have already left, about 7500 in total. Ryan Burge, often-quoted author of The Nones: Where They Came From, Who They Are, and Where They Are Going, 2^nd edition (Fortress, 2023), says that “It’s the biggest denominational schism ever.”

The breakup of the Methodists is often presented as a cautionary tale: this is what will happen to your denomination if it moves in the direction of recognizing same-sex marriage. But it’s not that simple. Graham reports that for many congregations leaving the denomination, same-sex marriage is the presenting issue but not the only one. Thomas Bickerton, president of the Council of Bishops, says, “We’ve learned this is not as much about human sexuality as we thought. This is about power, control and money.”

And, importantly, about church real estate and who controls it. Congregations in the United Methodist Church, as in other mainline denominations, do not have the right to take their property with them when if they leave the denomination. Deeds to real property in the United Methodist Church include a “trust clause” which specifies that the property “will continue to be used for the purposes of The United Methodist Church.” What this comes to is that the property of a United Methodist congregation remains United Methodist even if the congregation decides to leave. Or, rather, that has been true except for the last four years. Since 2019, the requirement that the property stays when the congregation goes has been lifted “for reasons of conscience.” But “conscience” can be stretched over a host of issues. Like money. Graham quotes Larry Duggin a member of the 17,000 member White’s Chapel of Southlake, Texas (Dallas/Fort Worth area), a church featured in the story: “We wanted to see, where was that money [for denominational dues] going? We weren’t happy with what we saw.”

What this suggests is that denominationalism itself is coming apart. When churches leave the United Methodist Church, do they affiliate with another, similar denomination? Some do. But others do not affiliate at all or affiliate with an association of churches, as is the case for White’s Chapel. They are forming a new association of churches, the Methodist Collegiate Church, which advertises itself as a “voluntary missional” association “centered around a strong regional congregation.” It’s another form of denomination-lite of which there are now many, including in the case of Reformed Churches the new Alliance of Reformed Churches, the destination of some congregations from my own denomination. They are associations rather than denominations. They put minimal financial obligations on the congregations. They have little of the traditional heft of denominations. 

The trend in the direction of congregationalism has been long in coming. And If Methodist congregations with roots in an episcopal form of church government can decide that it’s better to be independent, what of the churches in my denomination (Christian Reformed) which has always leaned in the direction of congregationalism. It doesn’t take much for a Reformed church to split. The CRC church order has from the beginning included the statement that “No church shall in any way lord it over another church, and no officebearer shall lord it over another officebearer” (The Church Order of the Christian Reformed Church, Article 85). This is the ecclesiastical equivalent of “Don’t tread on me.” Churches are going their own way.

But maybe the conclusion does not have to be that denominationalism is dead but ratsher that it has to change. Top down, heavy-handed, we-know-better-than-you denominational apparatchiks and assemblies will go the way of the dodo. And good riddance. Congregations live and flourish in their own soil. They should be allowed to do so.

And in doing so perhaps we can find a creative way for the congregations of the Christian Reformed Church to stay in communion with each other across the divisions that now separate us. If we can stay in conversation with each other, even when we believe each other to be wrong on one issue or another, we will have gained a bit of what Jesus holds up as essential for his followers: “This is how everyone will know that you are my disciples, by the love you have for each other” (John 13:35).

This talk of love brings me to the second and larger story in the religious news, the story of the pope’s decision to permit priests to bless couples in same-sex relationships and marriages. The officials presenting the pope’s decision tried to present it as small beer—just a change in the policy about blessings, nothing more. But of course, as the pope well knows, it’s a huge change, an about face. Instead of presenting judgment and condemnation of same-sex relationships as the face of the church, it presents love and blessing. Even if the policy on same-sex marriage has not changed, the church has. Or the church will.

What if the last two synods of the Christian Reformed Church (CRC) had moved in this direction? What if they had said to Neland Avenue Church, we disagree with you, but we love you and we want to stay in conversation with you. What if instead of delegates denouncing Neland and other people advocating for inclusion of LGBTQ people, they had offered a blessing: “We don’t agree with you, but we want to see you flourish.”

The CRC had an opportunity to do something like what the pope did in 2016. A study committee presented a pastoral report on same-sex marriage to the synod. The committee did not propose changing the official policy on homosexuality, but it pondered a variety of instances in the ordinary course of Christian where the right answer, regardless of one’s position on the issues, would seem to be blessing rather than condemnation: a pastor, say, whose child is getting married to someone of the same sex. May that pastor bless her daughter or his son, even if the pastor doesn’t agree with same-sex marriage? Or, say, a same-sex couple who bring their child for baptism. Can the church be happy with them and bless the child and their love for the child? Or, again, a same-sex couple who have lived long together and now one of the spouses has developed dementia. Can the church mourn with them, celebrate their love, and embrace them in the fellowship? 

In these instances and other instances, the church being the church, will in my experience incline toward love and hope. The breath of Spirit nudges us in that direction. It’s only when people are told that righteousness requires condemnation that the church begins to lean in the direction of judgment. But even then, the church knows in its heart that responding in judgment and legalities rather than in love betrays its own nature. It’s this that the pope has recognized. He cannot or will not at this point change the doctrine, though the doctrine needs changing. But he can do what he has done. He allowed the church to go with its heart. He can bless the church with the permission to bless those who are already part of the family. In this direction lies hope, love, reconciliation, and unity. 

I believe that one day historians of the church will note that the aging Pope Francis, recognizing that he did not have long to live, decided to move in the direction of grace instead of judgment. And these historians will note that in this move, the church began to change. And they will note further that the change didn’t end with the pope’s pronouncement but sifted through the body of the church. And that the church itself was never the same.

So I hope. So I pray.

Clay