Schism and Wesley’s Understanding of the Church

In a recent blog Scott Kisker entitled “Applying what Wesley Taught about Schism,” argued that Wesley’s approach to the unity of the church and the possibility of separation should be understood in relation to a theology of the invisible Church rooted in Pietism. On thisn basis he made the following conclusions:

That the integrity of the UMC has no impact on the unity of the church.
Methodism should embrace denominationalism.
There are now legitimate reasons for the UMC to separate into different connections.
The result of separation will not be the creation of a pure church; churches resulting from such a separation will include faithful and faithless people.

My latest blog published on Ministry Matters Schism and Wesley’s Understanding of the Church is a response to Kisker. I argue that his proposal does not do justice to Wesley’s theology of the visible church and develop an alternative which comes to the following conclusions:

A Methodist understanding of the church stands in strong critique of nominal and cultural Christianity.
Methodists should affirm the presence of faithful Christians in denominations and groupings with whom they disagree and this be a motivation for seeking the visible unity of the church.
The unity of the United Methodist Church has theological significance because division would compromise its claim to be a manifestation of the invisible church.
Where members of the UMC recognise each other as faithful Christians then love obligates them to develop structures which allow for liberty conscience while maintaining as much unity as possible.
Where members of the UMC are convinced that other members hold opinions or have practices that are wrong, love obligates them to remain in connection in order to work for the renewal of the church for the good of those they disagree with.
This does not mean there is no place for boundaries.