Advice to UM Pastors and Churches: Know What You are Going to Do!

by Steve | Nov 18, 2019 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter

Rev. Shane L. Bishop

By Shane Bishop –

I have played competitive softball since I was fourteen years old at every imaginable level. Up to a handful of years ago, I played over a hundred games each season and now in my late fifties, I still play twenty or thirty. For much of that time I was a shortstop. The shortstop is the captain of the infield and a part of my role was to make sure the other players were practicing situational awareness. My constant exhortation to my teammates before the ball was pitched? “Know what you are going to do!” 

My exhortation to United Methodist pastors and churches as we enter General Conference 2020 (GC2020) is very much the same, “Know what you are going to do!”

A handful of churches have already decided what they are going to do and won’t hang on until GC2020. They are the outliers and the wildcards. For them, the aftermath of General Conference 2019 was just too horrible to experience all over again. Most still haven’t stabilized. They don’t care what is decided at GC2020; release them from the Trust Clause and they will be gone. Leaving the denomination under the present rules involves a jagged and potentially contentious process but at least such churches can provide their own narrative. Leaving a contentious denomination feels very different than leaving over disagreements over human sexuality. The former is institutional; the latter personal. For these churches, attempting to get out will be their only move and they should be treated graciously. They did not ask for our current denominational dysfunction. To make them stay is a bad play for everyone.

The vast majority of United Methodist churches will stick it out until after General Conference 2020. They will see what unfolds and they will respond – or not. These churches and pastors need to be asking some important questions right now. Primary among them are, “What will our congregation do in response to GC2020 decisions?” and “What will our pastor do in response to GC2020 decisions?” Unless a pastor started the church, has been in place over a decade or is enjoying a near perfect fit; these will be two considerations with two very different sets of implications, not one.

In softball, you never know where the ball will be hit so you have to anticipate all possibilities. Anything could happen. Clearly the UM Church is at a tipping point; there is no end in sight concerning the conflict and the status quo is unsustainable. It is a good time to practice situational awareness.

 What could happen at GC2020?

1. The denomination formally divides
2. The denomination moves further right
3. The denomination shifts left
4. Things stay about where they are
5. An exit ramp is offered
6. An exit ramp in not offered
7. Things are passed that are later ruled unconstitutional by the Judicial Council

 What will happen at GC2020?

1. The delegates will be flooded with multiple plans and mutually exclusive agendas
2. Those plans will be subjected to the political processes of the floor
3. The human sexuality debate will overshadow all other business
4. The United Methodist brand will be further diminished
5. Many churches will be further destabilized
6. Whatever is decided will be rejected by about half the church
7. Whatever is decided will require more deciding in 2024 and beyond

In the meantime, I would encourage churches and pastors to ask themselves some very specific questions:

 The Big Questions 

1. Can we survive until GC2020? If not, what would be the process of negotiating an exit? If we leave, where will we go? What is involved in legally reorganizing the church once we leave? Who owns the assets? How will ordination work for pastors who leave?
2. If the UM Church formally splits, where will we land? How many ways might it split? How long will the process for formal separation take?
3. If the UM Church moves further right, can we stay?
4. If the UM Church shifts left, can we stay?
5. Can our congregation survive a congregational vote on human sexuality? Should this be avoided at all costs? What would it take to get them ready?
6. If there is a clear exit ramp offered, will we take it? Can we afford the terms? If we take an exit; do we go independent, independent but affiliated, form a new denomination or join an existing one?
7. If there is no resolution to the United Methodist conflict in 2020, will we stay? 

These are difficult questions that anticipate a number of outcomes and grapple with a number of responses. Churches and pastors, even of the same theological ilk, will posit in different places. I encourage everyone to be as proactive as possible on one hand and to carefully “think things through” on the other. A failure to plan for what could happen now will almost certainly be a leadership mistake later. Having informed, prayerful and non-anxious conversations with your church leadership right now will prevent pandemic fear in the present and knee-jerk responses in the near future.

Ready or not, GC2020 will be here in a minute and a half. The field is lined, the opposing teams are warming up, the umpires are discussing the rules, coaches are going over the game plan and players are already trash talking. The first pitch will soon be thrown. Like softball, you never know where the ball will be hit; you just have to know what you are going to do. 

Shane L. Bishop, a Distinguished Evangelist of the United Methodist Church, has been the Senior Pastor of Christ Church in Fairview Heights, Illinois, since 1997. This guest commentary is reposted by permission.

Judicial Council Leaves Traditional Plan Intact

by Steve | Nov 6, 2019 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter

The Rev. Tom Lambrecht (left) and Bishop Kenneth H. Carter visit prior to the start of oral hearings before the United Methodist Judicial Council meeting in Evanston, Ill. Lambrecht is vice president and general manager of Good News and a member of the Wesleyan Covenant Association leadership. Carter is president of the denomination’s Council of Bishops. Photo by Mike DuBose, UM News.

By Tom Lambrecht –

The Judicial Council has rebuffed several challenges to the implementation of the Traditional Plan as adopted at the 2019 General Conference in St. Louis. These decisions mean that the provisions adopted can take effect January 1, 2020, as planned. The provisions will take effect in the central conferences outside the U.S. as of February 26, 2020.

 In one request for a declaratory decision, the Council of Bishops challenged several provisions adopted by the special General Conference.

 Expanded Definition

The General Conference expanded the definition of the term “self-avowed practicing homosexual” to include a person “living in a same-sex marriage, domestic partnership or civil union, or is a person who publicly states she or he is a practicing homosexual.” This definition clarifies that someone who lives publicly as a practicing homosexual cannot evade accountability to the church’s standards by simply refusing to state under oath in a trial that they are indeed engaging in same-sex practices. The bishops challenged this provision as being unfair to persons who had already entered into a same-sex marriage, union, or domestic partnership before the definition was expanded.

 However, this definition merely made explicit what was already implied in the previous requirement. At no time in the church’s history have same-sex marriages, unions, or domestic partnerships been allowed for clergy. Persons in these relationships still have the right to rebut the charges by stating that they are not engaged in a sexual relationship.

 Bishops Not to Ordain

The General Conference added language explicitly prohibiting a bishop from commissioning or ordaining persons as deacons or elders if the Board of Ordained Ministry determines the individual is a self-avowed practicing homosexual or if the board has failed to certify it has carried out the disciplinarily mandated examination of the candidates, even if the individual has been recommended by the board and approved by the clergy session. The bishops challenged this provision as requiring the Board of Ordained Ministry to certify that a requirement has been met, when the Discipline does not require them to certify it. But of course, the language of the new provision is itself a requirement to certify the full examination of candidates, so the bishops’ argument is without merit.

Mandatory Minimum Penalty

The General Conference added a mandatory minimum penalty of a one-year suspension without pay for any clergy person found guilty in a trial of performing a same-sex wedding or union. The bishops challenged this provision by saying the penalty could not be applied equally to all clergy. Some clergy serve in appointments beyond the local church, and the church does not control their employment or their compensation. Some countries outside the U.S. do not allow employees to be suspended without pay. In both these instances, the bishops argued, a trial court could suspend the person without pay, but the penalty might not take effect.

 However, the trial court would know these circumstances before imposing a penalty, and could take the circumstances into account in tailoring a penalty to fit the circumstances. Without a specific case that has facts upon which the Judicial Council can base judgment, these questions are premature.

 The Judicial Council agreed. In Memorandum 1390, the Council declared that it did not have enough votes to declare any of the provisions unconstitutional. Instead, the provisions will go into effect. The Council stated, “Our rulings on the constitutionality, meaning, application, or effect of the various provisions will await the specific facts of applications of these provisions in cases to come before the Council after January 1, 2020.”

 Disaffiliation Provisions

The General Conference added a new ¶ 2553, which contains a process whereby local churches may withdraw from The United Methodist Church and keep their property.

 In a different request for a declaratory decision, the Council of Bishops questioned the effective date of the new process, stating that there were different interpretations of what the General Conference enacted. The Judicial Council ruled that the General Conference adopted the new paragraph to be effective immediately upon the adjournment of the General Conference. Thus, the new process is now in effect and has been since February.

 The Council of Bishops also raised the question of whether the possibility of alleged improper voting in St. Louis had nullified this paragraph. The Commission on the General Conference carried out an investigation that reportedly identified four person who voted at General Conference when they were not entitled to vote. Since the initial vote for ¶ 2553 only passed by two votes, the Commission ruled the vote null and void. They then referred the matter to the Council of Bishops to present to Judicial Council for a ruling.

 In a somewhat passionate oral hearing, the Judicial Council questioned why the Commission did not bring the case to Judicial Council itself and why members of the Commission were not present to answer questions about the allegations of vote fraud. Under questioning, it came out that only two bishops had seen the report of the results of the Commission’s investigation. One wonders how the whole Council of Bishops could refer the matter to Judicial Council without even seeing the facts behind the matter. Questions arose about whether the Commission even had the authority to investigate or to declare the vote null and void.

 The Judicial Council postponed consideration of this matter until its spring meeting. This means that ¶ 2553 as adopted by General Conference is still in effect. Only the Judicial Council can nullify an act of General Conference, and it has not done so. In a related case, an action by the New England Annual Conference to add requirements to the process in ¶ 2553 remains in limbo. Judicial Council has postponed consideration of that question until it decides whether the paragraph was legally adopted.

 Annual Conference Resolutions

 A number of annual conferences adopted resolutions responding to the 2019 General Conference actions. Most of the resolutions disagreed with the decision by General Conference to adopt the Traditional Plan.

 In three annual conferences, the bishops ruled the resolutions (in part or in whole) to be an illegal contravention of the Book of Discipline. Such resolutions attempted to limit the annual conference from spending funds on complaints, trials, and other disciplinary procedures. They also committed the annual conference to disobey the standards of the Discipline when it comes to the ordination of gay clergy.

The annual conferences where resolutions were ruled null and void by bishops and affirmed as such by the Judicial Council were:

• Mountain Sky (Bishop Oliveto)
• California-Pacific (Bishop Hagiya)
• Upper New York (Bishop Webb)

In the past, the Judicial Council has ruled that resolutions that simply disagree with a General Conference action and “aspire” to a different outcome are acceptable because they do not bind the annual conference to take any specific action and they are merely an expression of opinion.

The annual conferences where resolutions were challenged but validated as acceptable by the bishop and Judicial Council were:

• Central Texas (Bishop Lowry, two resolutions)
• North Texas (Bishop McKee) 

On all of the decisions analyzed above, the Judicial Council acted as we expected and hoped that they would. The Traditional Plan is firmly in place and set to go into effect in January. The disaffiliation process for local churches desiring to leave The United Methodist Church is still in place.

Possible actions by the 2020 General Conference could dramatically change the landscape in our church. New, less expensive disaffiliation processes are proposed for local churches and annual conferences. Changes in the way pension liabilities are handled would make the process of disaffiliation much less onerous. A plan of separation would create new denominations that would function under different rules than our current Book of Discipline. 

Annual conferences and local churches will have decisions to make in the coming few years. The Judicial Council will play an important role in ensuring that the actions of General Conference fall within the parameters of the Discipline. Stay tuned, as we try to illuminate the process, the talking points, and the decisions that the Council makes.

Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.

A Primer on the Conflict (Part II)

by Steve | Nov 4, 2019 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter

Bishops confer over the issue of whether the legislative committee can refer items to the denomination’s Judicial Council for review during the 2019 United Methodist General Conference in St. Louis. Clockwise from lower left are Bishops Thomas Bickerton, John Schol, David Bard, Julius C. Trimble, and Cynthia Fierro Harvey. Photo by Mike DuBose, UMNS.

By Tom Lambrecht –

In conversations and emails, I have frequently heard frustration and confusion regarding the situation in The United Methodist Church. Perhaps a succinct overview of our conflict will be helpful to people who are lost in the details or new to engaging with it. Naturally, this summary is offered from the point of view of a traditionalist, and others may see events differently.

Last week, we discussed the history and evolution of the conflict and identified the players. Today we examine the strategies of the different players and the plans to be considered in Minneapolis.

The Strategies

Up until the late 2000’s, many centrists voted with traditionalists because they thought it was the best way to keep the church together. Due to increased cultural acceptance and changing church political calculations, nearly all centrists are now siding with the progressives in pushing for change in the church’s position. Some progressives (most notably RMN) are willing to work with centrists to create a “big tent” church that allows, but does not require, same-sex weddings and ordination. Other progressives, however, are impatient with this approach and desire immediate affirmation and “liberation” of LGBTQ persons in the church (primarily the UM Forward group).

Some centrists and progressives believe that “history” is on their side and are committed to staying in the UM Church indefinitely to fight for changing the church’s position, while perhaps allowing traditionalist congregations to leave with their property. Other centrists and progressives believe that the only way to resolve the conflict and move forward is for separation to take place or to withdraw from the church (if it continues a traditionalist position). While 57 percent of centrist and progressive leaders voted for some form of separation at a spring meeting, some were encouraged to stay and fight by the increased success of centrist and progressive clergy being elected as delegates to General Conference 2020.

Some traditionalists believe that we should continue to fight to preserve the current stance of the UM Church indefinitely, while providing a gracious exit for annual conferences and local churches who cannot live with that stance. Most traditionalists, however, are in favor of some form of amicable separation plan that ends the fighting and allows traditionalists to come together in a new denomination that can carry out the church’s mission and ministry unhindered by opposition from an incompatible theological perspective.

A wild card in all of this is a conversation convened by Bishop John Yambasu of Sierra Leone (Africa). In a series of meetings currently ongoing, progressive, centrist, and traditionalist leaders, central conference representatives, central conference bishops, and U.S. bishops are meeting with a professional mediator to explore the possibility of a “grand bargain” that all could agree to. If successful, this group could propose new legislation for 2020 or modify proposals that have already been submitted. Although the deadline for submitting proposals to the 2020 General Conference has passed, the Book of Discipline allows an annual conference to submit a new legislative proposal no less than 45 days before General Conference (¶ 507.6). A special annual conference session could be called to submit such a new plan. It remains to be seen whether this mediated conversation will reach agreement on a new proposal.

The Plans

A number of plans to resolve the crisis have been submitted to the 2020 General Conference, many of which have not been publicized. Below are the three most public and viable plans.

The Traditional Plan seeks to pass most of those parts of the plan that were found unconstitutional by the Judicial Council or were not passed in St. Louis. Provisions mainly enhance the accountability of boards of ordained ministry, create a new accountability process for bishops through the Council of Bishops, and create a pathway for annual conferences and local churches to withdraw from the church with their property in a less expensive way. The Renewal and Reform Coalition views this option as our “Plan B” in case a plan of separation does not pass General Conference.

The Indianapolis Plan was developed by a working group of progressive, centrist, and traditionalist leaders. It is a plan of amicable separation that would create two or more new denominations birthed out of the UM Church based on theological perspective, including a centrist denomination that continues the current structure and polity of the UM Church. The denominations would have no organizational link with each other, but could work together on clergy pensions and benefits (Wespath), UMCOR, and the Publishing House. Annual conferences and local churches could decide by majority vote with which of the new entities to align. General church assets would be equitably divided among the new denominations. The new denominations would begin organizing immediately and be fully up and running by January 1, 2022. (See indyplanumc.org for more details.) The Renewal and Reform Coalition supports this option as its preferred plan, and it has been formally endorsed by the WCA Council. Other progressive and centrist leaders have also endorsed the plan.

The Next Generation UMC Plan was developed by the UMC Next leaders, including centrists and some progressives. The plan would repeal the parts of the Traditional Plan that were passed in St. Louis. It would also change the church’s position by deleting the teaching that “the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching,” allowing same-sex weddings, redefining marriage by removing the idea that there be two spouses and that they be a man and a woman, and allowing persons in same-sex relationships to be ordained and appointed as clergy. The plan creates a moratorium on all complaint processes related to sexuality and would allow church money to be spent to promote the acceptance of homosexuality. The plan provides for local churches (but not annual conferences) to withdraw from the church with their property by a two-thirds vote of the church conference in a less expensive way. Rather than an equitable division of general church assets, the plan envisions the General Conference making grants to departing churches from apportionments paid during the 2021-24 quadrennium. (See https://umcnext.com/legislation/ for more details.) This plan is supported by UMC Next, Mainstream UMC, Uniting Methodists, and Reconciling Ministries Network.

Amidst all the confusion and maneuvering, United Methodists should pray for God to bring clarity and some degree of consensus on a positive way for our embattled denomination to move forward in ministry.

Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News. 

A Primer on the Conflict (Part I)

by Steve | Oct 28, 2019 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter

By Tom Lambrecht –

Protesters against the United Methodist Church’s stance on sexuality prepare to serve Holy Communion inside the bar of the 2012 General Conference in Tampa, Florida. A UMNS photo by Mike DuBose.

In conversations and emails, I have frequently heard frustration and confusion regarding the situation in The United Methodist Church. Perhaps a succinct overview of our conflict will be helpful to people who are lost in the details or new to engaging with it. Naturally, this summary is offered from the point of view of a traditionalist, and others may see events differently.

The Conflict

The conflict in our church dates back to 1972, when the Board of Church and Society proposed the very first Social Principles for the new United Methodist Church (founded in 1968). One of the provisions in the proposal indicated a sympathetic affirmation of lesbians and gays and same-sex practices. Traditionalist delegates at General Conference were concerned that the biblical position regarding same-sex behavior was disregarded, and the conference voted to add words clarifying that “the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching.” Those words have remained in our Social Principles ever since.

Almost immediately, those who disagreed with a traditionalist position began lobbying to remove those words and change the church’s position to one of affirmation of same-sex practices. The church was not able to effectively deal with instances of high-profile disobedience through the normal accountability channels. This led to the addition of language in subsequent General Conferences mandating “fidelity in marriage and celibacy in singleness” for clergy, prohibiting the candidacy, ordination, or appointment of “self-avowed practicing homosexuals,” or the performing of same-sex weddings. Each time language was added, it was to close a loophole in the accountability process in order to maintain conformity with the church’s teaching.

Over the past 47 years, there have been several church-wide studies, many annual conference task forces, and numerous dialogs between persons with opposing perspectives, seeking to come to some common ground. Often, these experiences were heavily weighted toward a liberal understanding of affirmation and were seen by traditionalists as a way to try to manipulate the church into changing its position. Regardless, the outcome at every General Conference has been to affirm the current teaching of the church.

The closest the church came to changing its position was in 2012, when a motion to say that the church is “not of one mind” on these concerns failed 54 to 46 percent. At the 2016 General Conference, efforts to reinforce the long-standing position of the church were in the process of being passed by a greater margin than before, and there was talk that the church might split over this conflict.

In response, the Council of Bishops proposed forming a Commission on a Way Forward (COWF) to find a way to resolve the conflict. The 2016 General Conference agreed, and all proposals regarding sexuality were put on hold. The Commission came up with three proposals: a Traditional Plan to strengthen accountability to the church’s current position, a One Church Plan to allow annual conferences and local churches to determine their own stance on same-sex marriage and ordination, and a Connectional Conference Plan to create three new “jurisdictions” within the UM Church, based on viewpoint on ministry with LGBTQ persons.

A special General Conference was held in St. Louis in February 2019 to address the COWF proposals. The Traditional Plan passed by 53 to 47 percent. However, about half the provisions of the Traditional Plan were declared unconstitutional by the Judicial Council. More problematic than the actual voting were the vitriolic rhetoric and personal attacks in speeches from the floor, particularly by some centrist and progressive delegates.

Following the special General Conference, some bishops and as many as 28 annual conferences in the U.S. declared that they would not abide by the Book of Discipline on these matters. They declared that they would operate as if the One Church Plan had passed. This has thrown the UM Church into a constitutional crisis. When a sizable portion of the church is unwilling to live by our duly adopted policies, there is a stalemate.

It is this constitutional crisis that has led most leaders in the church to come to believe that some form of separation is necessary (or is inevitable) in order to resolve the conflict. Various proposals for separation are on the docket for the 2020 General Conference, to be held in May in Minneapolis.

The Players

Traditionalists are persons who believe that the biblical teaching is that sexual relations are to be reserved for a marriage between one man and one woman, ruling out same-sex relationships. Most traditionalists would see the allowing of same-sex weddings and ordination in the church as a violation of the authority of Scripture, view it therefore as an essential issue, and could not continue in a church that allowed it. Organizations that promote a traditionalist view are Good News, The Confessing Movement, UM Action (a program of the Institute on Religion and Democracy), and the Wesleyan Covenant Association (WCA). The WCA was formed in 2016 to prepare for a “next” Methodism in case a separation should occur. The other organizations have been devoted to reforming and renewing The United Methodist Church through the governance process of General Conference and annual conferences. These four organizations work together as part of the Renewal and Reform Coalition.

Centrists are persons who are “compatibilists” on the question of LGBTQ ministry. They believe that various opinions and practices can co-exist in the same church body because this is not an essential issue. A few centrists are traditionalists who can live in a church that allows same-sex weddings and ordination, as long as they themselves are not forced to violate their own principles. Some centrists have not made up their mind on LGBTQ ministry. Most centrists favor the church allowing same-sex weddings and ordination, but are willing to also allow in the church those who disagree and do not practice these things. Organizations promoting a centrist viewpoint are Uniting Methodists, Mainstream UMC, and UMC Next (which is really a coalition of centrist and some progressive leaders).

Progressives are persons who affirm same-sex relationships, weddings, and ordination. Some are willing to push the envelope by engaging in ecclesiastical disobedience to the Book of Discipline in order to promote change in the church’s position. Demonstrations by some progressives have shut down portions of every General Conference meeting since 1992 (except for 2016). Cultural changes in the U.S. have prompted progressives to become impatient with the slow rate of change in the church, contributing to their willingness to violate the Discipline, particularly since 2011. Organizations promoting a progressive viewpoint include Affirmation, Reconciling Ministries Network (RMN), the Methodist Federation for Social Action (MFSA), and UM Forward. MFSA is a social justice organization that has been in existence for over 100 years that promotes liberal positions on social and political issues. RMN promotes local churches and small groups becoming Reconciling Congregations or Ministries in support of LGBTQ persons. These and other groups work together in the Love Your Neighbor Coalition. UM Forward was recently formed to give priority to persons of color and other marginalized people by using “intersectionality” to link together the struggle for social justice across many issues (e.g., racism, sexism, and LGBTQ). They prefer the term “liberationist” to progressive.

The Role of Central Conferences

Central conferences are jurisdictions of The United Methodist Church located outside the United States. The U.S. has 7.1 million members, accounting for 57 percent of the church’s membership and 56 percent of the General Conference delegates. Three central conferences in Africa have 5.3 million members, accounting for 42 percent of the membership and 32 percent of the delegates. Three central conferences in Europe and Eurasia have 53,000 members, accounting for 0.4 percent of the membership and 5 percent of the delegates. The Philippines has 140,000 members, accounting for one percent of the membership and 6 percent of the delegates.

The African church is over 95 percent traditionalist in perspective. Their voting strength is sometimes diminished, however, by delegates unable to obtain visas to attend General Conference. This reduced the vote total of Africa by over 30 votes in St. Louis on a proposal that passed by only 54 votes. (It would have been 84 had all the delegates been present and voting.)

The Philippines is normally about two-thirds traditionalist and one-third centrist. But each General Conference delegation is made up of totally new people, so it is hard to predict. Europe is about half traditionalist and half centrist/progressive. Germany and much of northern Europe tend to be centrist/progressive, while Eastern Europe, Russia, Eurasia, and southern Europe tend to be traditionalist.

Traditionalist delegates from Africa, Europe, and the Philippines have been a consistent voting block added to traditionalist delegates from the U.S. Together, they have often formed a solid majority at General Conference. That majority is somewhat weakened for 2020 by the loss of a number of traditionalist delegates in the U.S., partially offset by an increase in traditionalist delegates from Africa.

Traditionalist delegates from the central conferences have consistently supported the current position of the church regarding LGBTQ persons. They voted solidly for the Traditional Plan in St. Louis, which is why it passed. These delegates can be counted on to continue voting for the Traditional Plan (and against attempts to repeal it) in 2020. Whether they would be willing to vote for an amicable separation plan is uncertain, but we have received positive input from leaders in all three geographic areas.

Next week, we will discuss the strategies being pursued and the plans to be considered by the 2020 General Conference.

Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.