"The issues are . . . as substantial as the issues that came to the fore in the Nicene controversies in the fourth century".

"those who adopt a 'progressive' agenda in response to the novelty of gay consciousness should be set free [via a 'Mexit'] to work out their own confessional and theological commitments without the constraints that currently muzzle their endeavors.  What is at stake here minimally is a theological and moral research program that should be implemented by those who think that the future of the church rests with them. . . . by my own lights I do not think that this research program will bear the fruit its adherents promise; on the contrary I deem it to be a serious mistake that represents a further schism in the history of the church.  The issues are for me as substantial as the issues that came to the fore in the Nicene controversies in the fourth centur[y], in the division between East and West in the eleventh century, in the debates about justification and grace in the sixteenth century, and in the rejection of divine revelation in the nineteenth century."

     William J. Abraham, "In defense of Mexit:  disagreement and disunity in United Methodism," a paper presented at the GBHEM/AUMTS theological colloquy entitled "The Unity of the Church and Human Sexuality: Toward a Faithful United Methodist Witness," 10-12 March 2017, and published in Unity of the church and human sexuality:  toward a faithful United Methodist witness (Board of Higher Education and Ministry, United Methodist Church, 2018), 21.
     The quotations of Albert C. Outler (who invented "the Wesleyan quadrilateral" in order to make room for the theological pluralism represented by the United Methodist Church of 1968) that Abraham provides from the early 1970s (way back then!) are unforgettable.  "we are being asked to vote for or against antinomianism, in an acid test," etc.

     See also Pannenberg, Yeago, Jenson, and others on this blog.