Will 1032 lead to schism?

I'm thankful for the comments I've been receiving on this blog. One reader commented on my post about Bishop Kammerer's motion to the Judicial Council to reconsider their decision number 1032. Decision 1032 grants to pastors "discretion" to deny membership to whoever they choose, and declares that this "discretion" cannot be reviewed or challenged by District Superintendents, Bishops or colleagues. In the case then before before the Judicial Council, membership was denied to a person the Methodist Right calls an "unrepentant homosexual."

I suggested that decision 1032 is divisive and will give further impetus to formally divide the church to cause schism. Does this mean, as my reader suggests, that "the Methodist Left will push for schism if 1032 is not reversed"? I really don't know. I don't speak for "the Methodist Left," and I'm not sure anyone does. What I am saying is that 1032 continues down a road that has put more and more pressure on progressives in the Church. The Methodist Right is making it more and more clear that the Methodist Left is not welcome in "their church."

We went from 1784 to 1972 with no mention of homosexuality in Methodist (or EUB Disciplines). It was not until the 1980's that there was language in the Discipline that clearly barred "practicing homosexuals" from ordination. Then it was only 10 years ago that the blessing of same-gender unions was forbidden in the Church--that was the first time that LGBT laity (as opposed to LGBT clergy or aspiring clergy) were directly effected by anti LGBT policies. Not only that, the anti-blessing policy was the first to interfere directly with the ministry and and worship life of local United Methodist Churches and their pastors. As such it effected non-gay persons as well.

Decision 1032 is the first decision to legitimate, in church law, the exclusion of LGBT persons from membership, and the concurring opinion of Judicial Council Member Keith Boyette, published with decision 1032, suggests that LGBT persons who are already members may expect that they could lose their membership in the church if they do not "repent." IRD's Mark Tooley and Good News' James Heidinger now see the door open to begin church trials to remove LGBT persons from membership and have said so.

"Amicable separation" was first proposed by the Methodist Right at the 2004 General Conference. Confessing Movement leader, Bill Hinson, painted this proposal as a compassionate way to end the suffering of progressive and LGBT Methodists under official church oppression. It appears that their intention is to put more and more pressure on progressive Methodists in order to force them out of the church--there doesn't seem to be much that is "amicable" about that.

Where I stand personally: Schism just doesn't seem right to me. I believe in the unity of the Body of Christ, and think it is a shame that we divide the church. On the other hand, what am I to do if I find my membership is forcibly removed from me? Can the Judicial Council really exclude me from the Body of Christ--or will the Spirit find a way to reconstitute that broken body somewhere else? The early church really began to grow after persecution drove them out of their first home in Jerusalem.