The depth of disagreement within The United Methodist Church over marriage and human sexuality, and over the authority and interpretation of Scripture, means that it will be nearly impossible for all opposing groups to continue living together in the same church. No matter which plan passes General Conference in February (or if no plan passes), there will be some congregations and clergy who are unable to conscientiously live within the boundaries established by General Conference.
This awareness is what fueled the thinking of a majority of the Commission on a Way Forward (COWF), which from its very first meeting acknowledged that an exit path that allowed congregations to leave the denomination with their property should be a part of any plan the COWF submitted to General Conference. The concept of an exit path was included in all the sketches of the three plans submitted by the COWF to the Council of Bishops. A developed exit path was included with the Connectional Conference Plan and the Traditional Plan. However, the Council of Bishops acted to take out any exit path from the One Church Plan and the Connectional Conference Plan.
The Traditional Plan contains an exit path for congregations and annual conferences, which is an integral part of the plan. The Judicial Council ruled (incorrectly in my estimation) that this exit path is instead a transfer of congregations, which would require a 2/3 vote of the local church and a 2/3 vote by the annual conference to approve the exit.
The need for annual conference approval dramatically limits the usefulness of the Traditional Plan exit path, as an annual conference could decide not to approve the exit and thereby force the local church to lose its property or else file suit against the conference in court. It is not a good witness for the church to be involved in hundreds of lawsuits over church property, which could be the result of such an outcome. It would be unconscionable for local churches and annual conferences to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars dealing with lawsuits-money that ought to be going toward the mission and ministry of the church. The Episcopal Church spent over $45 million at the national level (not counting what local churches spent) in order to preserve church property for the denomination.
A more streamlined exit path for congregations is needed that would apply equally to all the various plans that might be adopted. In agreement with a coalition of persons from West Ohio representing the broad theological spectrum, it would be best if General Conference adopted an exit path first before considering which plan to adopt. Such a step would help rebuild trust and lower anxiety in the church.
Is there already an exit path for congregations in the Book of Discipline?
Some bishops and some proponents of the One Church Plan claim there is already a way for local congregations to exit the denomination with their property. This is not exactly the case.
Under ¶ 2548.2, the annual conference may transfer the deed of a local church to “one of the other denominations represented in the Pan-Methodist Commission or to another evangelical denomination under an allocation, exchange of property, or comity agreement.” This would require the consent of the bishop, cabinet, district board of church building and location, and annual conference, in addition to the request of the local church.
Under ¶ 2549, the annual conference can close a church that “no longer serves the purpose for which it was organized or incorporated” (as a United Methodist congregation). The conference can then sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of the property, including selling it to the exiting congregation. This would also require the consent of the bishop, cabinet, district board of church building and location, and annual conference, in addition to the request of the local church.
Under either of these scenarios, any one of the approving persons or bodies can stop the congregation from keeping its property. The terms under which the congregation can keep its property are up to the bishop and annual conference officials. They can impose whatever payment requirements they want upon the local church, or they can refuse to allow the local church to keep its property at all.
Within the last several years, a few large congregations have been able to successfully exit the denomination with their property. This was primarily because these churches carried a large debt load that the annual conference was unable to assume. Some other congregations that have tried to leave have been denied the ability to take their property, and some congregations have been locked out of their building in a preemptive move by the annual conference.
The current provisions of the Discipline put the local church at the mercy of the bishop and annual conference. There is no certain or consistent process whereby a local church can exit the denomination with its property. This sets up an adversarial relationship between the local church and the annual conference, which is ripe for escalating into a lawsuit over the property.
A consistent, straightforward exit path for local congregations that does not depend upon the approval of the annual conference needs to be part of the actions of the special General Conference in February.
Which exit path proposal does the Renewal and Reform Coalition support?
Five exit proposals have been submitted to General Conference for consideration. The Renewal and Reform Coalition can work with any one of three of them.
Petition 90058 Disaffiliation – Ottjes is the simplest and most straightforward of the three proposals. It has the advantage that it was passed by a legislative committee at General Conference 2016 before being referred to the COWF process. This petition needs to be amended to include the requirement that departing congregations pay the annual conference their fair share of unfunded pension liabilities, as well as add some technical language clarifying the process of implementation. This option would require at least 90 days of study and discernment by the local church, a 2/3 vote by the church conference, payment of pension liabilities, and the local church retaining all other assets and liabilities/debts.
Petition 90059 Disaffiliation – Boyette is the most acceptable of the three exit options. It already contains the pension liability and implementation language. A controversial provision would offset the local congregation’s share of unfunded pension liabilities with that congregation’s share of all undesignated reserves held by the annual conference and general church. This would lower the pension payment of the local church and require that a portion of the general church’s reserves be designated for pensions. This option would require at least 30 days of study and discernment by the local church, a 55 percent vote by the church conference or a 2/3 vote by the charge conference (leadership of the church), payment of pension liabilities, and the local church retaining all other assets and liabilities/debts.
Petition 90066 Disaffiliation – Taylor was developed by a group of people coming from a more moderate or progressive stance on the issues before us. It is a very thorough process for congregations to exit, but it has many more requirements, including some that could compromise a congregation’s ability to thrive in ministry after departure. It requires more extensive study involving the annual conference, payment of up to two years’ apportionments, repayment of any annual conference grants, payment of pension liabilities, and the local church retaining all other assets and liabilities/debts. This exit path would expire on December 31, 2023.
While the Taylor option is very comprehensive, it contains too many requirements that could burden the local church and make it difficult to thrive in ministry after disaffiliation. The process has too many ways where it could be unacceptably lengthened. It gives the annual conference and persons outside the congregation too much voice in determining the church’s future. It has an open loophole that would allow the annual conference to insert “poison pill” terms or conditions that would make it impossible for the church to keep its property.
The church would be better served by adopting either the Ottjes or Boyette exit path that is simpler and easier to implement, while vesting control of the church’s future in the local congregation. However, the Renewal and Reform Coalition has prepared amendments that would eliminate most of the objectionable requirements from the Taylor option, should it be the one chosen by the General Conference to work on.
The Brooks “Graceful Exit” (Petition 90051) would have only a one-year window for churches to withdraw. It would require payment of 50 percent of the church’s annual budget plus one year’s apportionments. It has no provision for funding unfunded pension liabilities. It also lacks some of the technical language necessary for implementation. The Coalition does not support this proposal.
The St. Marks UMC proposal (Petition 90056) provides only a two-year window for churches to withdraw. It would require approval of 2/3 of all local church members, not just those in attendance at a church conference. It would require repayment of all annual conference funds received by the local church in the previous two years, plus payment of two years’ apportionments. It also lacks some of the technical language necessary for implementation. The Coalition does not support this proposal.
Exit as a Way Forward
In Genesis 13, we read the story of Abram and Lot having problems due to quarreling between their various herdsmen. “So Abram said to Lot, ‘Let’s not have any quarreling between you and me, or between your herdsmen and mine, for we are brothers. Is not the whole land before you? Let’s part company. If you go to the left, I’ll go to the right; if you go to the right, I’ll go to the left.'”
This is the kind of generous spirit the Renewal and Reform Coalition believes ought to govern our decisions regarding congregations that choose to exit from the denomination. They are our brothers and sisters. There ought not to be quarreling or lawsuits over property. We ought not try to coerce unwilling participation in a covenant that a congregation can no longer support. We can find enhanced unity in the church around a willing covenant of congregations interested in pursuing a common mission in a common way through shared beliefs and practices. Those who cannot conscientiously participate in that covenant should be released from it without penalty.
So far, only the supporters of the Traditional Plan are on record endorsing a gracious exit path that would be available to any congregation, whether progressive or traditionalist, to leave the denomination with their property. We should follow the Golden Rule and treat others in the way we ourselves would like to be treated. Here’s hoping the General Conference delegates will embrace a fair, consistent, and gracious path for congregations to exit with their property. The future peace of the denomination may depend upon it.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News. He is a member of the Commission on a Way Forward.
The Commission on a Way Forward members were from The United Methodist Church around the world, both clergy and laity. Photo by Maidstone Mulenga, United Methodist Council of Bishops.
Of the 99 petitions submitted to the special called General Conference in St. Louis on February 23-26, 78 have been cleared to be considered by that body. This includes all the main plans and proposals that have been under consideration.
A special called session of General Conference can deal with only those matters that are part of the call. In this case, the call was for the purpose of “receiving and acting upon a report from the Commission on a Way Forward based upon recommendations of the Council of Bishops.” A May 2018 Judicial Council decision clarified that “It is the obligation of the General Conference to determine, in the first instance, through its committees, officers and presiders, acting in accordance with The Discipline and the rules and procedures of the General Conference, whether any such petition is ‘in harmony.’ However, business not in harmony with the purpose as stated in the call is not permitted unless the General Conference by a two-thirds vote shall determine that other business may be transacted” (Decision 1360).
The Commission on General Conference assigned the Committee on Reference the responsibility of determining which of the 99 petitions are “in harmony” with the call and thus able to be considered. That committee met January 11-12 and made its determination.
All of the 48 petitions related to the three plans submitted by the Commission on a Way Forward are “in harmony.” This includes the One Church Plan, the Connectional Conference Plan, and the Traditional Plan.
Of the remaining 51 petitions, one was ruled invalid because of technical errors.
In order to be “in harmony,” the committee said the petition needed to meet at least one of three criteria:
1) submitted by the Commission on a Way Forward (COWF)
2) the content of the petition directly addresses inclusion or exclusion of LGBTQ persons, or
3) the content of the petition seeks to correct or perfect COWF plans for the continuing existence of The United Methodist Church.
Of the remaining 50 valid petitions, 30 were found to be “in harmony” and thus able to be considered by the General Conference. These include the following general areas:
Two petitions that would modify and strengthen the Traditional Plan, called the Modified Traditional Plan, submitted by Maxie Dunnam
One petition for an alternative type of traditional plan submitted by Lonnie Brooks
Four petitions that make the language in the Book of Discipline stronger in a more traditional direction
Eight petitions that make up the Simple Plan, which would allow same-sex marriage and the ordination of practicing homosexuals, redefinemarriage as between “two adults,” and would seem to permit other types of sexual relationships outside of monogamous marriage, while providing no conscience protections for a traditionalist viewpoint
Three petitions that make up the Fully Inclusive Way Forward, which removes all prohibitions against same-sex marriage and the ordination of practicing homosexuals
Seven petitions that make the language in the Book of Discipline more progressive, with such suggestions as permitting Deacons to perform same-sex weddings, adding “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the requirement for inclusiveness, redefining marriage, and removing the chargeable offenses against performing same-sex weddings or being a self-avowed practicing homosexual clergyperson
In addition to the above petitions, five petitions providing for different pathways for congregations to exit from the denomination with their property were also declared “in harmony” and will be considered. A future article will review the various exit plans.
Based on criterion #3 above, two petitions that provide a mechanism for an amicable separation that would dissolve The United Methodist Church and create two or more new churches was declared “not in harmony” and will not be considered. It would require a 2/3 majority vote to consider these petitions. Such a 2/3 vote would also be required in order to pass the proposal for amicable separation, so if it comes to that point, it would still be a viable alternative with the backing of a supermajority of the delegates.
The good news is that all the petitions that the Renewal and Reform Coalition believes need to be considered are able to be considered. The General Conference will be able to fairly evaluate many different options for resolving the church’s conflict and creating a way for the church to move forward with vitality and faithfulness.
The Renewal and Reform Coalition is supporting the Modified Traditional Plan, which maintains the current biblically-based teaching of the church regarding human sexuality, marriage, and ordination. It contains enhanced accountability provisions that would help move the church in the direction of greater unity of belief and practice in these matters. It also provides for a gracious exit for annual conferences, local churches, bishops, and clergy who cannot in good conscience agree to abide by the church’s teachings and requirements.
The Modified Traditional Plan will require a number of amendments to bring the plan into compliance with Judicial Council Decision 1366, which ruled certain parts of the plan unconstitutional. These amendments are in development and will be released publicly soon, in order to give delegates a chance to digest them prior to arrival in St. Louis.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News. He is a member of the Commission on a Way Forward.
At the 2016 United Methodist General Conference, delegates voted to accept a proposal by the Council of Bishops to set up the “Commission on a Way Forward” to study how to deal with the conflicts within the church related to homosexuality. The Council of Bishops set up the Commission on a Way Forward, which did its work responsibly, proposing three plans.
The Council of Bishops received the report and voted for one of those options, “The One Church Plan,” based on the current majority group within the Council. The Council then tried to severely limit other legislative proposals at General Conference to that one option. The Judicial Council ruled that the Council could not limit the proposals sent to the called General Conference. All three plans are coming before a special session of general conference in February in St. Louis.
Now we are witnessing a high level of activity designed to sway the General Conference decision toward the “One Church Plan.” Bishops, progressive groups, and individuals are campaigning based on the recommendation of the One Church Plan by the Council of Bishops, voted in by the Council’s current controlling majority group.
However, the representative make-up of the Council of Bishops makes their preference for the One Church Plan predictable. It is the preference of the majority group within the Council. The Council of Bishops has more bishops from liberal and declining areas than from traditionalist or growing areas, which shapes its decisions.
To illustrate this point, for example, there are now more United Methodists in the Congo Central Conference (only one of three central conferences in Africa) than in the Western, North Central, and Northeastern jurisdictions combined. But these three liberal-leaning U.S. jurisdictions now have a total of 23 bishops, compared to four Congolese bishops.
The combined membership of the Western, North Central, and Northeastern Jurisdictions is 2,615, 925. The membership of the Congo Central Conference is 2,999,242.
There are 23 bishops on the Council representing the Western, North Central, and Northeastern jurisdiction. That is one bishop for every 113,735 members. There are four bishops representing the Congo Central Conference. That is one bishop for every 749,811 members.
The number and distribution of bishops is the result of our historical pattern of church membership and the original establishment of Episcopal areas. Over time, as the northern and the western parts of the U.S. church declined, the Discipline slowed their losses of bishops. (The number of bishops has been reduced in recent years in these areas, but not by much as their membership decrease would have dictated.)
At the same time, we were very slow in increasing bishops in rapidly growing areas. The growing areas of Africa are woefully understaffed with bishops and our church has been reluctant to spend the money to increase that number. (Africa is finally getting several new bishops in the coming years, but not as many as could be justified by membership.)
Interestingly, when the Discipline was changed to establish the current formula for U.S. bishops (by a far more generous standard than that used for African bishops), the Southeastern Jurisdiction could have added another bishop but declined.
The election of bishops is a very political process. The Northeastern, North Central, and Western Jurisdictions elect mostly liberal bishops, with a few exceptions. The Southeastern Jurisdiction and South Central Jurisdiction have elected an ideologically diverse group over the years.
The result of all of this history of the deployment of bishops is that the Council of Bishops is an unrepresentative group dominated by older declining areas and therefore more liberal than the General Conference or the denomination as a whole.
Given the preference of the Council of Bishops for the One Church Plan, a fair question would be this: if the Council of Bishops is to become this active in General Conference decisions, or if it is to become a planning body within the denomination, how should it best be constituted and organized for effectiveness? What representation should we expect within the Council of Bishops?
Presently this is the way U.S. bishops are assigned: each U.S. jurisdiction may elect five bishops for the first 300,000 members and another bishop for each 300,000 additional members.
However, consider an alternative way of looking at the number of bishops. Each bishop in the U.S. represents an average of 153,789 church members. If the church allocated bishops by this number, the distribution of the Council of Bishops would be as follows:
North Central Jurisdiction: 8 bishops instead of 9
Northeastern Jurisdiction: 8 bishops instead of 9
South Central Jurisdiction: 11 bishops instead of 10
Southeastern Jurisdiction: 18 bishops instead of 13
Western Jurisdiction: 2 bishops instead of 5
African Central Conferences: 34 bishops instead of 13
The Europe Central Conferences and Philippines: 1 each instead of 3 each
In our present Council of Bishops, it is easy to see why liberal areas of the church dominate and why the Council recommended the “One Church Plan.” If there were 29 bishops in the SE and SC Jurisdictions, 34 bishops in Africa, and only 18 bishops in the North and West, wouldn’t the recommendation have been very different?
Delegates to General Conference 2019 should consider the recommendation of the “One Church Plan” by the Council of Bishops from the perspective of the unrepresentative make-up of the Council.
We respect our bishops and the office of the Episcopacy. We listen to them and honor their crucial work within the church. However, in recommending the One Church Plan the Council of Bishops is presenting the ideological representation of a majority group in the Council, not a vision of a way forward for the whole church.
Rev. Robert Sparkman is an ordained United Methodist clergyperson in the North Alabama Annual Conference and the Senior Pastor of Latham United Methodist Church in Huntsville, Alabama. He has been a delegate to three General Conferences and a reserve to three. He was active with the group of church leaders that studied, proposed, and passed legislation to provide fairer representation of growing areas to General Conference and on boards and agencies. He was the convener and moderator of that group for eight years. A version of this article originally ran in the Juicy Ecumenism blog UM Voices and is reprinted by permission.
In May 2018, a majority of United Methodist bishops agreed to endorse the One Church Plan (OCP). This plan entails the removal of restrictive language in the United Methodist Book of Discipline pertaining to the practice of homosexuality. If these changes are approved at the 2019 General Conference, congregations will then be able to decide whether to allow same-sex weddings in their sanctuaries. This will also grant annual conferences power to decide whether to ordain LGBTQ clergy. In other words, the OCP, if approved, has the potential of putting an end to the long-standing acrimonious debate on human sexuality in the General Conference by transferring decisions on the matter to the hands of local congregations and annual conferences.
So, with great enthusiasm, supporters of the OCP hail it as the plan that will “unite” us all since they believe that it will allow for the coexistence of both traditional and progressive views on sexuality in the UM Church. Accordingly, they also argue that the Traditional Plan (TP) is the only plan that will divide the church. The truth is, either one of the two plans, OCP or TP, will lead to division. If the OCP is approved, traditionalists will leave. In the same way, if the TP plan (in its modified form) prevails, we will see an exodus of progressives out of the UM Church. But not all. Some progressives plan to continue fighting for change in the denomination even if the TP is passed. This indicates that the TP will lead to less formal division than OCP promoters would like us to believe.
To entice the majority of non-U.S. United Methodists who hold traditional views on marriage, supporters of the OCP are guaranteeing them that nothing will change in the central conferences. They also claim that central conference churches and annual conferences won’t be able to decide on the matter anyway due to legal restrictions to same-sex marriage in the countries where they are situated. However, what OCP advocates fail to acknowledge is that not all central conferences are monolithic or homogenous – there are central conferences that have traditionalists and progressives within their fold. The Philippines is a good example. While the majority of Filipino United Methodists hold traditional views on marriage, there is a substantial number of progressives among them. A review of ongoing discussions on several Filipino United Methodist Facebook pages reveals increased polarization around the issue. This growing rift will widen if, for example, the General Conference decides in favor of the OCP. Contrary to what is being spread by promoters of the OCP, the Philippines Central Conference will be deeply affected if the OCP passes.
Dr. Luther Oconor
If the OCP is approved, central conferences that are not monolithic will have to clarify their interpretation of the OCP revisions in the Book of Discipline to both their traditional and progressive constituents. Are they going to take a position that will satisfy traditionalists only or will they take the side of progressives? This process will only lead to bitter disputes and deeper divisions. In another scenario, the OCP might embolden progressive clergy in central conferences to bless same-sex unions even if they are not legally recognized. The need for central conferences to provide clarity on the matter will be even more necessary in such a case. Even conservative central conferences are not exempt from this. They too will eventually have to clarify their position to distinguish themselves from the U.S. church. They will also have to go through all the trouble and expenses of composing their own version of the Book of Discipline to retain traditional language on human sexuality. Simply put, if the OCP is approved, it will not be business as usual for the central conferences, monolithic or not.
Much of what is claimed by OCP promoters regarding central conferences must, therefore, be carefully scrutinized by all central conference delegates who still hold traditional views of marriage but are being asked to be “generous” to the impulses of progressive United Methodists in the U.S. They cannot vote for approval of the OCP based solely on claims that it will not affect them. That is simply untrue. They must, like every delegate, vote their consciences according to the leading of the Holy Spirit.
As a United Methodist clergy belonging to a central conference, I am compelled to shed light on a much broader issue. The OCP, if approved, will effectively eliminate the influence of generally more conservative central conference United Methodists on the future of our global denomination. Efforts to silence the rising voice of central conference delegates are not new. Progressives in the past decade, most likely alarmed by the ever-increasing African delegations to the General Conference, began advocating for a more regionalized form of legislative process under the guise of giving central conferences more autonomy. In reality, these efforts to regionalize were primarily meant to disentangle U.S. conferences from the growing influence of the more evangelical central conferences whose growth has enabled the UM Church to maintain biblical standards on human sexuality. Providentially, these regionalizing attempts have been repeatedly rejected by previous General Conferences.
Nevertheless, this effort to regionalize legislation in the UM Church has made a comeback in the guise of the OCP, and it is distressing that the majority of our leaders support it. Like previous attempts at regionalization, the OCP, I’m afraid, seems to perpetuate the age-old imperialist assumption that Westerners are superior and more educated (or should I say, more “civilized”). Therefore, those in central conferences must keep to themselves because they have nothing to teach, certainly not about human sexuality. Additionally, the OCP attempts to reverse the inevitable trend that has been happening in the past decade or two – Christianity’s center of gravity has shifted from the “global north” (North America and Europe) to the “global south” (Africa, Asia, and Latin America). We have seen the same shift in the UM Church. Today all of its growth and much of its vitality can be found in the central conferences, most particularly in Africa. Meanwhile, we see decline in the U.S. and Europe. The General Conference testifies to this shift. By 2020, roughly 43 percent of the delegates will be from the central conferences (32 percent from Africa and 6 percent from the Philippines). By 2028, central conference delegates will likely outnumber their U.S. counterparts. This scenario worries progressives in the denomination, whose “every wind of doctrine” (Ephesians 4:14) version of the faith has never produced large numbers of converts for the church but instead accounts for much of its decline.
Most global south Christians firmly believe that the Bible is the word of God and the primary authority on Christian practice. They unabashedly preach repentance and salvation in Jesus only, and the power of the Holy Spirit to transform lives. They unapologetically view miracles and the supernatural as normative for the Christian life. I am grateful that such a witness persists in the UM Church. The voices of our global south sisters and brothers are, by definition, necessary to our global church and are our best hope for the future. Many Western supporters of the OCP seek to suppress that witness or define (even impose) what that witness should look like. Why? Because they see the very values, which I have outlined above, as a threat to their vision of Christianity. Some would rather dismiss global south Methodists as Bible-thumping fundamentalists, rather than humbly learn from them. Truth be told, our global south sisters and brothers have preserved for us the “faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints” (Jude 3:3). If we want to understand the Methodism that once spread scriptural holiness over the British Isles and the American continent, we don’t need to look farther because we will find it in Africa and, to some extent, in the Philippines.
In their desire to disengage from what the global south offers, many supporters of the OCP appear to inadvertently end up complicit in the unfortunate legacy of colonial missions by pursuing a relationship with non-U.S. United Methodists mainly on paternalistic lines. Instead of embracing the blessings of the global south, many would rather create a separate subculture that sadly bears the hallmarks of western individualism. Rather than seeing their global south central conference counterparts as equals, they would rather limit their influence. If the OCP prevails, the American Church will get to do what it wants (as has always been the case in the past) without being accountable to their sisters and brothers in Africa and other parts of the global south. More tragically, the UM Church will have missed an opportunity to be a truly connectional global church.
Luther Oconor is Associate Professor of United Methodist Studies at United Theological Seminary in Dayton, Ohio. He is an ordained elder in the Pampango Philippines Annual Conference.
A recent newsletter published by Mainstream UMC argues that, just as the church changed its understanding and teaching about slavery, the role of women in the church, and divorced clergy, the church can change its understanding and teaching about marriage and homosexuality. The church got it “wrong” in the past, and now the church can get it “right.” Leaving aside the validity of comparing the past historical issues of slavery, the role of women, and divorce with the contemporary controversies surrounding marriage and homosexuality, I do not think this argument supports the One Church Plan.
To me, this is an argument for the Simple Plan, which removes all prohibitions against same-sex marriage and the ordination of practicing homosexuals. If the church’s interpretation of Scripture is wrong on marriage and sexuality, then we ought to mandate a change in our interpretation.
The One Church Plan, however, envisions staying united in “one church” but having two different understandings and two different teachings about marriage and homosexuality that will supposedly be equally valid and affirmed by the church. That is not what the church did with regard to slavery, the role of women, or with divorce.
Essentially, the Methodist Episcopal Church in the early 1800s operated under a “One Church Plan” approach to the issue of slavery. Southern annual conferences condoned (and some even defended) slavery, while many northern annual conferences became increasingly opposed to slavery. The church stayed “united” in this way until the crisis of 1844, when the northern delegates outnumbered the southern delegates and voted to suspend a slave-holding bishop. That action precipitated a month-long General Conference that culminated in the North-South split in the Methodist Episcopal Church that foreshadowed the Civil War 17 years later.
In the example of slavery, the moral imperative to end the practice overwhelmed the desire to preserve church unity, and the church split. A “One Church Plan” approach proved untenable in the long term (it lasted less than 50 years).
When the Methodist Church removed the prohibition against ordaining women in 1956, it did not make provision for some annual conferences to ordain women while allowing other annual conferences not to ordain women. Instead, it removed the prohibition and expected that every annual conference would ordain women. There were central conferences outside the United States that would have preferred not to ordain women because of their cultural situation. The Judicial Council ruled that they did not have that option (see Decision 155).
When the church changed its understanding and teaching regarding women’s ordination, it mandated that all annual conferences follow the new interpretation. It did not adopt a “One Church Plan” approach to women’s ordination.
It is more difficult to pinpoint the timeline of how divorced clergy became accepted in The United Methodist Church. The bishop who ordained me, Bishop Marjorie Matthews, was the first divorced person elected bishop (she was also the first woman elected bishop). Nevertheless, divorce per se is not a barrier to ordained ministry today, whereas a generation ago, there was such a thing as a “divorce review committee” whose purpose was to determine if a clergy person’s divorce was biblically justified. (See Judicial Council Decision 497).
Here again, the idea of having two different standards regarding divorced clergy in the church at the same time has not proven to be tenable. A 2016 attempt by the Liberia Annual Conference to bar divorced clergy from being nominated for election as bishop of Liberia was not approved by the West Africa Central Conference.
All these historical examples demonstrate a change in the church’s position on an issue. However, none of them shows the viability of a “One Church Plan” or “local option” approach to the issue. Rather, the church came to a united understanding of a new position that was then enforced throughout the church.
But that may be what supporters of the One Church Plan intend. Many of them have said that they favor complete affirmation of same-sex relationships but regard the OCP as an interim step on the way to such full affirmation. History would tend to support the idea that the move toward a One Church Plan would ultimately result in a change of teaching and practice for the whole church, without exception.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News. He is a member of the Commission on a Way Forward.
En mai 2018, une majorité des évêques Méthodistes Unis
ont convenu de donner leur appui au Plan d’une Église Unique (en sigle PEU). Ce
plan consiste à supprimer les termes restrictifs dans le Livre de Discipline de l’Église Méthodiste Unie concernant la
pratique de l’homosexualité. Si ces changements sont approuvés à la Conférence
Générale de 2019, les congrégations pourront alors décider de permettre ou non la
célébration de mariages entre personnes de même sexe dans leurs églises. Cela
donnera également aux conférences annuelles le pouvoir de décider si elles
veulent ordonner ou non des personnes LGBTQ en tant que membres du clergé. En
d’autres termes, le Plan d’une Église Unique (PEU), s’il est approuvé, pourrait
mettre fin au débat acrimonieux de longue date sur la sexualité humaine à la
Conférence Générale en transférant la prise de décision sur cette question aux
congrégations locales et aux conférences annuelles.
Ainsi, c’est avec beaucoup d’enthousiasme que les
partisans du PEU le considèrent comme le plan qui va nous « unir »
tous car ils croient qu’il va permettre la coexistence des deux courants dans
l’Église Méthodiste Unie, traditionnel et progressiste, en ce qui concerne la
sexualité. En conséquence, ils argumentent également que le plan traditionnel
(en sigle PT) est le seul plan qui divisera l’église. La vérité, c’est que l’un
ou l’autre de ces deux plans, le PEU ou le PT, mènera à la division. Si le PEU
est approuvé, les traditionalistes quitteront. De même, si le PT (sous sa forme
modifiée) prévaut, nous assisterons à un exode de progressistes de l’ÉMU. Mais
pas tous quitteront. Certains
progressistes envisagent de continuer à se battre pour le changement des
valeurs dans notre dénomination, même si le PT est adopté. Cela implique que le
PT mènera à une division moins formelle que ce que les promoteurs du PEU
voudraient nous le faire croire.
Pour attirer la majorité des Méthodistes Unis non
américains qui ont une perspective traditionnelle en matière du mariage, les
partisans du PEU leur garantissent que rien ne changera dans les conférences
centrales. Ils prétendent également que les églises et les conférences
annuelles dans les conférences centrales ne seront pas en mesure de se
prononcer sur la question en raison des restrictions légales au mariage
homosexuel dans les pays où elles sont situées. Toutefois, ce que les
défenseurs du PEU négligent de reconnaître, c’est que toutes les conférences
centrales ne sont pas monolithiques ou homogènes – il y a des conférences
centrales qui ont des traditionalistes et des progressistes dans leurs rangs. Les
Philippines en sont un bon exemple. Bien que la majorité des Philippins Méthodistes
Unis aient une position traditionnelle sur le mariage, il y a parmi eux un
nombre considérable de progressistes. L’examen des discussions en cours sur
plusieurs pages Facebook des Philippins Méthodistes Unis révèle une
polarisation accrue concernant cette question. Cette discorde croissante s’approfondira
si, par exemple, la Conférence Générale se prononce en faveur du PEU. Contrairement
à ce qui est communiqué par les promoteurs du PEU, la Conférence Centrale des
Philippines sera profondément affectée si le PEU est adopté.
Dr. Luther Oconor
Si le PEU est approuvé, les conférences centrales qui ne
sont pas monolithiques devront clarifier leur interprétation des révisions
issues de ce plan dans le Livre de
Discipline à leurs membres traditionnels et progressistes. Vont-ils adopter
une position qui ne satisfera que les traditionalistes ou vont-ils prendre le
parti des progressistes ? Ce processus ne conduira qu’à des querelles amères et
à des divisions plus profondes. Par ailleurs, le PEU pourrait encourager les
pasteurs progressistes dans les conférences centrales à célébrer les unions
homosexuelles, même si elles ne sont pas reconnues par la loi. Dans un tel cas,
il sera d’autant plus nécessaire que les conférences centrales apportent des
éclaircissements en la matière. Même les conférences centrales conservatrices ne
n’en sont pas pour autant épargnées. Elles aussi devront éventuellement
clarifier leur position pour se distinguer de l’Église américaine. Elles devront également se donner la
peine et assumer toutes les dépenses nécessaires pour composer leur propre
version du Livre de Discipline afin
de conserver le langage traditionnel sur la sexualité humaine. En termes
simples, si le PEU est approuvé, ce ne sera pas comme si de rien n’était pour les
conférences centrales, qu’elles soient monolithiques ou non. Une grande partie
de ce qui est affirmé par les promoteurs du PEU au sujet des conférences
centrales doit donc être examinée attentivement par tous les délégués des
conférences centrales qui ont encore une conception traditionnelle du mariage mais
auxquels on demande d’être « généreux » aux impulsions des Méthodistes
Unis progressistes des États-Unis. Ils ne peuvent pas voter en faveur du PEU en
se fondant uniquement sur des affirmations que cela ne les affectera pas. Ce n’est tout simplement pas vrai. Ils
doivent, comme tous les autres délégués, voter selon leur conscience et selon
la direction du Saint-Esprit. En tant que membre du clergé Méthodiste Uni d’une
conférence centrale, je me sens obligé de vous apporter des éclaircissements
sur une question beaucoup plus importante. Le PEU, s’il est approuvé, éliminera
en fait l’influence des Méthodistes Unis des conférences centrales,
généralement plus conservateurs, sur l’avenir de notre dénomination mondiale. Les
efforts visant à réduire au silence la voix croissante des délégués des
conférences centrales ne sont pas une nouveauté. Au cours de la dernière
décennie, les progressistes, probablement alarmés par l’augmentation constante
du nombre de délégations africaines à la Conférence Générale, ont commencé à
plaider en faveur d’une forme plus régionalisée de processus législatif sous
prétexte d’accorder aux conférences centrales une plus grande autonomie. En
réalité, ces efforts de régionalisation visaient principalement à dissocier les
conférences américaines de l’influence croissante des conférences centrales
plus évangéliques dont la croissance a permis à l’ÉMU de maintenir les normes
bibliques sur la sexualité humaine. Providentiellement, ces tentatives de
régionalisation ont été rejetées à maintes reprises par les Conférences Générales
précédentes.
Néanmoins, cet effort pour régionaliser la législation
dans l’ÉMU a fait un retour en force sous l’apparence du PEU, et il est
regrettable que la majorité de nos dirigeants le soutiennent. Comme les
précédentes tentatives de régionalisation, le PEU, je le crains, perpétue la
présomption impérialiste séculaire que les Occidentaux sont supérieurs et plus
instruits (ou devrais-je dire, plus « civilisés »). Par conséquent,
ceux qui se trouvent dans les conférences centrales doivent rester entre eux
parce qu’ils n’ont rien à enseigner, et certainement pas sur la sexualité
humaine.
En outre, le PEU tente d’inverser la tendance inévitable
qui s’est produite au cours des dix ou vingt dernières années – le centre de
gravité du christianisme est désormais déplacé du « Nord global »
(Amérique du Nord et Europe) au « Sud global » (Afrique, Asie et
Amérique latine). Nous avons vu le même changement dans l’ÉMU. Aujourd’hui,
toute sa croissance et une grande partie de sa vitalité se trouvent dans les
conférences centrales, plus particulièrement en Afrique. Entre-temps, nous
constatons un déclin aux États-Unis et en Europe. La Conférence Générale
témoigne de ce changement. D’ici 2020, environ 43 % des
délégués proviendront des conférences centrales (dont 32 % d’Afrique et 6 % des Philippines). D’ici
2028, les délégués des conférences centrales seront probablement plus nombreux
que leurs homologues américains. Ce scénario inquiète les progressistes de
notre dénomination, dont la version de leur foi ” à tout vent de doctrine
” (Éphésiens 4:14) n’a jamais produit un grand nombre de convertis pour
l’Église, mais explique au contraire une grande partie de son déclin.
La plupart des chrétiens du Sud global croient fermement
que la Bible est la parole de Dieu et l’autorité primordiale de la pratique
chrétienne. Ils prêchent sans aucune
honte la repentance et le salut en Jésus seul, et la puissance de l’Esprit
Saint pour transformer les vies. Sans hésitation, ils considèrent les miracles
et le surnaturel comme des éléments normatifs de la vie chrétienne. Je suis
reconnaissant qu’un tel témoignage persiste dans l’ÉMU. Les voix de nos frères
et sœurs du Sud global sont, par définition, nécessaires à notre Église
mondiale et sont notre meilleur espoir pour l’avenir. De nombreux partisans
occidentaux du PEU cherchent à supprimer ce témoignage ou à définir (voire à
imposer) à quoi ce témoignage devrait ressembler. Pourquoi ? Parce qu’ils
voient les valeurs mêmes, que j’ai décrites ci-dessus, comme un obstacle à leur
conception du christianisme. Certains préféreraient considérer les Méthodistes
du Sud global comme des fondamentalistes parlant toujours de la Bible, plutôt
que de tirer humblement des leçons de leur expérience. En vérité, nos frères et
sœurs du Sud global ont préservé pour nous « la foi qui a été transmise
aux saints une fois pour toutes » (Jude 3:3). Si nous voulons comprendre
le Méthodisme qui a répandu la sainteté scripturaire sur les îles britanniques
et le continent américain, nous n’avons pas besoin de chercher plus loin parce
que nous le trouverons en Afrique et, dans une certaine mesure, aux
Philippines.
Dans leur désir de se détacher de ce que le Sud global offre, de nombreux partisans du PEU se retrouvent par inadvertance complices de l’héritage malheureux des missions coloniales en poursuivant une relation avec des Méthodistes Unis non Américains, principalement selon des conceptions paternalistes. Au lieu d’embrasser les bénédictions que le Sud global apporte, beaucoup préfèrent créer une sous-culture séparée qui porte malheureusement les marques de l’individualisme occidental. Plutôt que de considérer leurs homologues des conférences centrales du Sud global comme des égaux, ils préfèrent limiter toute leur influence. Si le PEU l’emporte, l’Église américaine pourra faire ce qu’elle veut (comme cela a toujours été le cas dans le passé) sans avoir à rendre compte à ses frères et sœurs en Afrique et ailleurs dans le Sud global. Plus tragique encore, l’ÉMU aura manqué l’occasion d’être une Église mondiale véritablement connexionnelle.
Luther Oconor est professeur agrégé d’études méthodistes unies au United Theological Seminary à Dayton, dans l’État d’Ohio aux États-Unis. Il est un ancien ordonné dans la Conférence Annuelle de Pampango Philippines
Under either of these scenarios, any one of the approving persons or bodies can stop the congregation from keeping its property. The terms under which the congregation can keep its property are up to the bishop and annual conference officials. They can impose whatever payment requirements they want upon the local church, or they can refuse to allow the local church to keep its property at all.
At the 2016 United Methodist General Conference, delegates voted to accept a proposal by the Council of Bishops to set up the “Commission on a Way Forward” to study how to deal with the conflicts within the church related to homosexuality. The Council of Bishops set up the Commission on a Way Forward, which did its work responsibly, proposing three plans.
The number and distribution of bishops is the result of our historical pattern of church membership and the original establishment of Episcopal areas. Over time, as the northern and the western parts of the U.S. church declined, the Discipline slowed their losses of bishops. (The number of bishops has been reduced in recent years in these areas, but not by much as their membership decrease would have dictated.)
