What’s In the Connectional Conference Plan?

By Thomas Lambrecht –

The report of the Commission on a Way Forward and the legislative proposals for the three plans they developed are now posted publicly on the Judicial Council website. In the interest of helping facilitate discussion and consideration of the three main proposals that will be voted upon at the special General Conference next February, I have now shared the elements involved in each plan. You can read about the One Church Plan here and the Traditional Plan here.

Although this article is shorter than the 232-page full report and petitions, in the interest of thoroughness, many details will be included. For those looking for a shorter report, you can skip to the summary at the bottom of this article.

Features of the Plan

The Connectional Conference Plan is the most complicated of the three proposals coming before the General Conference. It attempts to treat all perspectives on the church’s stance regarding LGBT persons fairly and equally. Due to the great complexity, I will not be able to cover all the details involved in the plan, but I will describe the broad approaches that the plan takes.

The essence of the Connectional Conference Plan is to create three new theological jurisdictions (called “connectional conferences”) in place of the current five geographical jurisdictions. Each connectional conference would cover the entire United States. There would be a Traditional Conference that would maintain the current Discipline’s prohibition of same-sex marriage and the ordination of self-avowed practicing homosexuals. There would be a Unity Conference that would neither forbid nor require same-sex marriage and the ordination of self-avowed practicing homosexuals (this branch would be similar to what the One Church Plan envisions, but only for this branch). And there would be a Progressive Conference that would require and expect all pastors to perform same-sex weddings and all its annual conferences to ordain and appoint practicing homosexual clergy.

There would be a sorting process designed to limit the number of votes that would be needed. Current jurisdictions would vote first on which of the connectional conferences they want to affiliate with. (All jurisdictional property would then go with that connectional conference.) Any annual conference that disagreed with the decision of its jurisdiction could vote to join a different connectional conference. (All annual conference property, assets, and liabilities would go with the annual conference wherever it decided to affiliate.) Any local church that disagreed with the decision of its jurisdiction or annual conference could vote to join a different connectional conference. (All local church property, assets, and liabilities would go with the local church.) No local church would need to vote unless it disagreed with the decision of higher-up entities. Any vote by any church body to realign with a different connectional conference (once the plan is implemented) could happen no more frequently than in four years from a previous vote, in order to minimize continuing conflict and membership “churn.”

Bishops and clergy would similarly choose which connectional conference they wanted to join, with a possibility of transitional appointments until a suitable appointment is found for them in their preferred connectional conference. Clergy could serve in a different connectional conference, with the approval of that conference, as long as they adhered to the requirements of that conference.

There is some question whether all three connectional conferences would be populated, with the possibility that many progressives might stick with a Unity Conference instead of forming their own conference. But that decision would be up to each jurisdiction, annual conference, local church, and clergy person, rather than being dictated by the plan itself. There is no doubt that many annual conference boundaries would need to be redrawn and new annual conferences formed. There would be two or three annual conferences covering each geographical location in the United States. Each new connectional conference could determine whether or not it wanted to have jurisdictions as part of its new structure (hopefully with another name).

Under the Connectional Conference Plan, the primary identity would be the connectional conference. Some of the powers of the General Conference would be shifted to the connectional conference, including:

  • Determining the number of bishops needed, electing the bishops, and funding the bishops (no funding for a bishop in the U.S. would come from a different connectional conference).
  • Determining the qualifications, powers, and duties of clergy, including accountability through the complaint process.
  • Determining the qualifications, powers, and duties of bishops, including accountability through the connectional conference college of bishops.
  • Adapting most of the Book of Discipline according to its theological perspective.
  • Holding its bishops accountable to the connectional conference rules and requirements.
  • Creating whatever boards and agencies the connectional conference believes it needs to enhance effectiveness in ministry.

All three connectional conferences would still be part of The United Methodist Church, but each would have much more autonomy to operate in the way it believes would be most helpful and consistent with its theological perspective. The general church would consist of:

  • A General Book of Discipline including the doctrinal standards and theological task, ministry of all Christians, new global social principles, and provisions governing all shared agencies.
  • A shortened General Conference, mostly for celebration, sharing of best practices, and governing those parts of the church shared by all the connectional conferences.
  • A redefined Council of Bishops, caring for ecumenical relationships, fostering cross-connection ministries and partnerships, and serving as a learning and support community for bishops (This redefined COB would not have supervisory authority over the bishops or over the connectional conferences, as that function would pass to each connectional college of bishops.).
  • General Board of Pensions and Health Benefits (Wespath).
  • The Publishing House.
  • General Council on Finance and Administration.
  • United Methodist Committee on Relief (UMCOR).
  • Parts of the General Board of Global Ministries as agreed upon by all the connectional conferences.

All the rest of the general boards and agencies would be subject to whether or not any connectional conferences want to continue to participate in them. Continuing agencies could serve one, two, or all three connectional conferences, and funding would be apportioned from only those conferences participating. Connectional conferences could also contract with specific agencies for fee-based services as desired.

The current central conferences outside the United States would be renamed as connectional conferences and be given equal power and authority with the US connectional conferences. Each non-U.S. connectional conference could remain separate as it is, join with other connectional conferences in its area, or join one of the three U.S. connectional conferences. If annual conferences in a given area realigned, non-U.S. connectional conference boundaries might need to be redrawn. Funding for bishops and ministries outside the U.S. would be shared by all three U.S. connectional conferences, as it currently is.

Enactment of this plan would require nine constitutional amendments that would hopefully be approved and ratified as a package. Implementation of the plan would take until 2023, and the 2024 General Conference would be shifted to 2025, moving the four-year cycle of General Conference so that it does not coincide with United States presidential election years.


The Connectional Conference Plan creates three new theological conferences (Traditional, Unity, and Progressive) in place of the current five geographical jurisdictions. It creates a process of sorting that seeks to minimize the number of entities that will need to vote on an affiliation. It continues a United Methodist Church umbrella of shared services and shared doctrinal standards, but devolves much of the authority and accountability functions to the connectional conferences. Cross-connection ministries and partnerships could continue, but work within each connectional conference would be funded and governed by that conference’s theology and requirements. Bishops and clergy would only serve within their connectional conference.


  • This is a radical restructuring of the church that seeks to treat each perspective fairly and equally.
  • Not only would this restructure hopefully resolve the impasse over marriage and human sexuality, it is designed to create the opportunity to redesign the general agency structure into something that better serves the needs and theological emphases of various parts of the church. It would allow experimentation with ministry and structure within each connectional conference that could cross-pollinate the other conferences.
  • This plan requires a two-thirds majority at General Conference and ratification by two-thirds of the members of all the annual conferences. It can only be adopted if there is broad support across the church for such an approach. At this time, it appears to lack that broad support across the theological spectrum. In the event that other plans fail to pass General Conference, it is possible this plan might serve as a compromise for a way forward.
  • Even though one’s primary identity would be in the connectional conference, rather than in the general church, some evangelicals and traditionalists would still object to being part of the same general church where another part of the church can support and engage in practices that the Bible calls sin. These persons would feel the need to withdraw from the denomination, but there is no provision in the plan for them to do so.
  • The connectional conferences would face a branding challenge in distinguishing their churches from those of a different connectional conference, sometimes in the same community.
  • The four-year implementation period needed is too long for some who are impatient to resolve our impasse immediately. This contrasts with a 22-month implementation for the Traditional Plan and an 18-month implementation for the One Church Plan.

There is no easy or painless way out of the impasse that besets our church, and there is no perfect solution. Unique among the three plans, the Connectional Conference Plan seeks to provide a place for each theological perspective and to treat everyone equally. No one would be forced to leave the church, and hopefully fewer would desire to do so under this plan. I believe it could serve as a good “Plan B” in case the Traditional Plan fails to pass. It is certainly preferable to the One Church Plan and to the option of doing nothing.

Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News. He also served as a member of the Commission on a Way Forward. 



  1. This had me scratching my head. It is so complicated I could not see how it would work in practice. The timeline for implementation is so long that the divisions among us will continue to grow. Nine constitutional amendments?! That looks like a steep hill to climb.

  2. No, Plan B is a complete church split should the Traditional Model fail. The Traditional Model continues our worship of ONE God in ONE church preaching and teaching ONE Gospel. Both the local option and this plan would have us declaring blasphemy and heresy in parts of the church as the new way forward dressed up in a disguise of some sort of bizarre contextualizing absurdity.

    As for the content of this plan —- preposterous to the radical extreme.

  3. This plan appears to me to be a last ditch effort to keep an increasingly irrelevant institution from becoming extinct. No group (church or otherwise) can expect to function effectively when any two of its reasons for being are mutually exclusive.

  4. I’ve read Tom’s description of all three plans and their implications (thank you, Tom!).

    I find it bizarre that there is no “gracious exit” option in the One Church and Connectional Conference plans… there are simply too many pastors and laity who will not be able to stay in a church – even under a broad umbrella, that sanctions same-sex marriage and homosexual ordination.

    This may sound intolerant or hardcore, but to many pastors and laity it is just a seeking after faithfulness to scripture, and to forms of ministry that offer hope and healing to what the scriptures recognize as human brokenness and sin. The power of the gospel and God’s grace can break our chains – all of them – and this will be a sticking point for many folks in their understanding of faithful ministry and proclamation (and I’m one of them!).

  5. Mike,
    As I’m sure you know, unless the Traditional Model is adopted, the Wesleyan Covenant Association WILL form a new Methodist denomination, likely getting together with other worldwide Wesleyan orthodox Methodist movements. That, in itself, would essentially finish off what is now known as the United Methodist Church.

    In order to save the United Methodist Church, the 864 delegates must go to St Louis in February and vote for the REAL one church plan, the Traditional Model if they sincerely want to save the one UMC.

  6. I am very upset that Thomas Lambrecht would say this is a good plan B if the traditional plan doesn’t work. Under this plan we are still connected by name to something we do not believe. This is compromising the Word and turning a blind eye to a very serious problem. This would trivialize traditional Christianity. I am just shocked.

  7. They can complicate this all they want! There is only one choice. That is following Christ and the Word! Other than that is discrediting the laws of God.

  8. This three-sizes-fit-all approach boggles my mind and grieves my spirit in its complexity. The gospel is simple: believe in your heart and confess with your mouth. My yoke is easy and My burden is light. And the government shall be upon His shoulders.

  9. Gene Maddox says

    I would have a hard time flying under the banner of a denomination that recognizes the legitimacy of what the Scriptures maintain as sin. If same sex behavior is not sin, then let’s embrace it. But if same sex behavior is sin then we must reject it on all fronts. Can we actually expect God to bless us if we embrace that which He has forbidden?

  10. Gary Bebop says

    United Methodists manifest immense brand pride and loyalty. This is abundantly clear on a road trip through the Midwest. United Methodist Churches often display a gigantic cross-and-flame on their buildings. These displays project exaggerated logo consciousness. The pastors may as well wear tall red hats to match. Brand pride subordinates everything else to it. This causes jealous claims regarding UMC identity. Brand pride will play an insidious role in what delegates decide at Special Conference 2019.

  11. Was Paul lying to the to the Corinth Church in order to frighten them and get their attention? Or, were the sins listed here DIFFERENT in that context from those same sins of this 21st century? Or, can the UMC simply REMOVE the sin of homosexual sex and LEAVE the others in plaice, thus enforcing them with our clergy and preaching salvation from them to our laity, and remain true to Scripture? Or, should the UMC offer salvation for ALL these sins for repentant sinners as Paul appears to be actually celebrating here?


  12. Trying to stay together under a system that makes provision for sin is selling out, plain and simple. And I dare say more about protecting pensions and money than about reaching the world for Christ.

    Which is why we left the UMC for another church that is Wesleyan in theology. Fair and kind to all, respectful of all, includes being honest with all. Which means you cannot call what God deems an abomination as “gender identity”. Sin is still sin.

    • Dennis Norviel says

      I left the UMC as a Lay Leader in 2005. These and other ungodly acts by clergy definitely made the decision for me. God’s Word is just that Then, Now and Forever more.

  13. Dennis Norviel says

    Just one question come to mind regarding assignment of Pastors? Are “Traditional” Pastors going to be assigned to “One Church” churches?

    That says a lot regarding the cross pollination statement mentioned in the Connectional Conference Plan.

    That in and of itself says that the leaders of the Denomination have placed a tool within the body of this plan that will allow the homosexual agenda of the LGBTQ community to continue expending its systematic change of the UMC.

    • Thank you for your question, Dennis. Traditional pastors would not be assigned to One Church churches unless they asked to be. More importantly, no One Church or Progressive pastors could be assigned to Traditional churches without approval from the Traditional annual conference. I expect that the annual conference would be relatively strict about who they let in from other conferences.

      The “cross-fertilization” mentioned in the report envisions that ideas and strategies that work well in one connectional conference could be shared with the rest of the church, so that we could learn from each other. Of course, those ideas and strategies would need to be compatible with the theology and biblical understanding of the particular connectional conference.

      I assure you as a writer of the plan that there was no nefarious intent in allowing the spread of the homosexual agenda. Rather, every effort was made to wall off and protect each connectional conference’s integrity (financially and otherwise).

      In Christ,
      Tom Lambrecht

  14. Sylvia Scott says

    I don’t want to be complicated. I am 83 and a Methodist all of my life. I know most every thing that comes to a gay person. The hate, the exclusion, the remarks, again the exclusion. Let me tell you as strongly as possible….BEING GAY IS NOT A CHOICE! Do you see Jesus standing at the entrance of our denomination and demanded that they go away? Think about this for a while.

  15. Linda M. Long says

    This plan goes against what I firmly believe our founder would approve of. I have been a Methodist/United Methodist since I was 5 and sm now 69. I do not hate members who of the LGBTQ community; in fact some of my best friends are gay and have a family member who lived this lifestyle for a period of time but now is living the life God wanted for her. She is married to a wonderful man and is mother to 4 beautiful children. My issue is having changes to our BOD which allows ordaining openly gay clergy and allowing “Marriages” between same sex couples to be performed. Most of all I am extremely concerned that I could have appointed to the church I attend a member of the LGBTQ community. This person is going to be preaching to me that I am a sinner but does not see that according to God’s word they are sinning. I feel that if any plan is adopted other than the Traditional Plan, there will be an exodus of people leaving the UMC and I may have to br one of them and joining other denominations. At least if the Traditional plan is adopted and adhered to those who cannot abide by our BOD which to me is following Scripture are allowed to leave the UMC but still be Methodists. No plan devised by man is going to be perfect. However, I feel the Traditional is the closest. I have been praying for those entrusted to making the decision. I love the UMC and pray we will continue to be UNITED and feel the only way we can is to agree to disagree in Christian love but not change the way the BOD reads when it comes to homosexuality not being compatible with scripture. If those who cannot abide by it then this plan gives a way out for the churches/districts/conferences peacefully. It’s true this will cause the UNITED METHODIST CHURCH to lose #’s. This is sad but in my humble opinion we cannot have part of the UMC following their own rules by making scripture conform to worldly views of what is right and wrong. God calls us to love all people but we are not to give in to these pressures. May God have mercy on the UMC.

  16. In the US we have lost our moral compass. Especially our young people, who are told we need to recruit to our churches, but, to do so, we have to change our values to suit their “tolerances.”

    Let us not forget about a love of all God’s children, how Methodists are not opposed to civil unions to not be discriminating — and even allowing gay pastors, as long as they don’t practice their homosexuality.

    I am glad the Methodist church has chosen to draw this “line in the sand” at this time. But from what I am reading, the Methodists will not be “United” going forward (perhaps they were in name only)

Speak Your Mind


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.