by Steve | Sep 30, 2019 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
The 2019 General Conference of The United Methodist Church. Photo by Kathleen Barry, UMNS.
By Thomas Lambrecht –
As noted last week, the conversation group working on the Indianapolis Plan has come to agreement and submitted the final version of a plan for an amicable separation in The United Methodist Church. You can read the first part of my analysis of the plan here.
This plan (of which I am one of the authors) envisions the UM Church giving birth to new denominations of United Methodism: a Traditionalist UM Church, a Centrist UM Church, and possibly other denominations, including a Progressive UM Church.
This blog continues to talk about the unique values and advantages of the Indianapolis Plan.
All denominations formed under the Indianapolis Plan could use (but are not required to use) the “United Methodist” name with a modifier to distinguish one denomination from another (e.g., Liberationist United Methodist Church, United Methodist Church of the Philippines). The use of the name is not important for many United Methodists in the U.S. However, it is an extremely important issue for some in the central conferences outside the U.S. In Africa, the United Methodist name is a well-established and trusted brand that opens doors and protects the church from capricious governmental actions that might threaten the property or ministries of the church there. They also told us how difficult, cumbersome, and expensive the process is to change a corporate name. We heard from many that they could not support a plan that would require them to change the name of the denomination they are part of. The same is true of the cross and flame logo, which is widely used in Africa and the Philippines to demarcate the United Methodist Church brand. Denominations could continue to use (but are not required to use) the logo with modifications to distinguish one denomination from another.
The Indianapolis Plan provides a new, less costly way to handle pension liabilities. Rather than require an up-front payment of pension liabilities (as in the current local church exit provision), this plan allows Wespath to reallocate those liabilities to the new denominations based on which annual conferences, local churches, and clergy choose to align with each denomination. We engaged in extensive conversation with legal experts at Wespath about how to handle pensions. They were eager to cooperate (without implying any endorsement of our plan) and provided significant legal language for the Indianapolis Plan legislation that they believe addresses the concerns over pensions. Since the money for unfunded pension liabilities may never be needed, it makes more sense to transfer the liability, rather than requiring churches and annual conferences to pay the liability up front. Local churches that withdraw to become independent would still be required to pay for unfunded pension liabilities before withdrawing.
The Indianapolis Plan envisions a General Conference-approved equitable plan for allocating general church assets among the resulting new denominations. While the UMC Next Plan proposes the gift of some financial resources to a new Traditionalist UM Church, the Indianapolis Plan envisions an equitable division of general church assets among all denominations formed in this process. Such a division of assets would not require any boards or agencies to be dissolved or any property to be sold. Rather, liquid assets and investment properties could be divided proportionally based on membership. Where there are donor restrictions on assets, those restrictions would be maintained. While the Indianapolis conversation group did not have time to agree upon a formula for allocating assets, different groups have submitted proposals for how such an allocation might be done. The General Conference and its legislative committee will determine how the process would work. The group agreed that disputes would be settled by appeal to an arbitration board, making any resort to civil courts or lawsuits unnecessary.
The Indianapolis Plan offers a short timeline, allowing expeditious movement into the new denominations for those who are ready, while leaving the door open for alignment decisions for the next eight years. The plan envisions annual conferences making alignment decisions before the end of 2020, with local churches that disagree making their decisions by mid-year 2021. General Conferences forming the new denominations would take place in fall 2021. The new denominations would be fully functional under their new governing documents on January 1, 2022. This timeline allows the new denominations to form and get on with ministry, rather than being mired in the decision-making process. At the same time, annual conferences or local churches (more likely) could change their alignment through the end of 2028. This allows those who are not ready to make a decision right away to live into the possibilities and make a decision later. However, no annual conference or local church could take a vote to reconsider its alignment unless three or four years had passed since its previous vote on the matter.
The Plan creates an interim implementation for those ready to move immediately into a new denomination. Annual conferences and local churches that make a quick alignment decision could begin to live under their new denomination beginning August 1, 2020, on an interim basis. In addition, jurisdictions would be encouraged not to elect new bishops in 2020 but wait until 2021 or 2022 to do so, based on the annual conferences that remain in the Centrist UM Church. This would avoid having a surplus of bishops who do not have an annual conference in which to serve. Central conferences would likely not see any change in their annual conference alignments and could elect bishops as planned in 2020.
The interim implementation will allow immediate change to how churches and annual conferences function, in order to curtail further conflict. Traditionalists would immediately be free of the pressure to change their position on marriage and sexuality and could begin moving in a robustly proactive ministry direction. At the same time, centrists and progressives would immediately be free of complaints, trials, and disciplinary processes over same-sex weddings or the ordination or appointment of self-avowed practicing homosexuals.
Some have pictured amicable separation as a divorce. Our group has instead pictured this process as The United Methodist Church giving birth to new children. The UM Church as it has been will exist no more. But it will exist through the new denominations that inherit the characteristics of the parent denomination. Each of the “children” will be different from each other. But they will all be part of the United Methodist family and heritage.
The underlying motive for taking this path is to broaden and multiply the mission of the church. As different denominations, we will be able to reach more people with the good news of Jesus Christ, make more disciples, and see more ways in which the presence of God’s Spirit transforms the world. We will be able to focus our energies and resources on mission and ministry, rather than fighting, power, and control. Each new expression of the church will be able to reach people that the other denominations cannot reach.
As the plan states, “We envision an amicable separation in The United Methodist Church which would provide a pathway to new denominations of the Methodist movement so we can all make new disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. These new denominations, though separate, will continue the rich heritage of the Methodist movement while being free to share their respective witnesses for Christ unhindered by those with whom they have been in conflict. We will release one another to joyful obedience to Christ’s call on our lives.” May it be so.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Sep 23, 2019 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
Photo by Nick Youngson. Alpha Stock Images.
By Tom Lambrecht –
The conversation group working on the Indianapolis Plan has come to agreement and submitted the final version of a plan for an amicable separation in The United Methodist Church. As the document states, “We seek to move away from the caustic atmosphere which has often marked conversation in the United Methodist Church into a new season where we bless one another as we send each other into our respective mission fields to multiply our witness for Christ.” Readers can find the final version of the plan here.
This plan (of which I am one of the authors) envisions the UM Church giving birth to new denominations of United Methodism.
- A Traditionalist UM Church would maintain the current stance of the Discipline regarding same-sex marriage and the ordination of LGBT persons.
- A Centrist UM Church would remove all the restrictions related to same-sex marriage and LGBT ordination, allowing individual annual conferences and local churches to make those decisions (essentially a “One Church Plan” denomination).
- A Progressive UM Church that celebrates and mandates same-sex marriage and LGBT ordination in all its churches could form immediately, and/or progressives could find a home in the Centrist UM Church.
- Other denominations could be formed by any annual conference or group of 50 congregations.
These new denominations would be separate from one another, with different Books of Discipline, separate finances, and different theological perspectives. However, all would share a common Wesleyan, United Methodist heritage and doctrine. All could use the name “United Methodist” with a modifier to distinguish it from the other denominations. All could use a version of the cross and flame logo modified to fit their particular denomination. Future blogs will talk more about the nuts and bolts of this plan and how it might work.
What are the unique values and advantages of the Indianapolis Plan?
It is the only plan made public up to this point that was crafted by persons representing diverse theological perspectives. The group contained five traditionalists, five centrists, and two progressives. (Attempts were made to enlist more progressives, but those approached were unable or unwilling to participate. However, progressive groups were consulted as the plan developed.) As such, this plan seeks to take into account the values and interests of all three groups. It represents a compromise among the three for the sake of ending the fighting and helping the church move into a positive and fruitful future.
It is the only plan that seeks division/separation rather than expulsion. By now, the leaders of all three groups — traditionalists, centrists, and progressives — have publicly stated that separation of some kind is the only way to move forward in a positive direction. Most other plans, however, envision a forced departure of one group or another from the church. The UMC Next Plan would essentially force traditionalists to leave the UM Church by changing the church’s definition of marriage and allowing LGBT ordination. Continuing to perfect the Traditional Plan by increasing accountability and closing loopholes would essentially force progressives to leave the UM Church or be subject to complaints and disciplinary procedures.
Only the Indianapolis Plan treats all perspectives equally, forcing no one to “leave” the church, but at the same time creating new denominations and allowing anyone to choose which new denomination to be part of. Nowhere in the plan is this more clearly seen than in the ability of central conferences, annual conferences, and local churches to make the decision on which denomination to align with by majority vote, rather than a super-majority (2/3) vote. If one group is “leaving,” a super-majority vote would make sense. But if all are choosing between equal alternatives, then a majority vote is more appropriate. Under the Indianapolis Plan, there are no winners or losers, people “leaving” and people “staying.” The plan attempts to treat all parties equally.
The Indianapolis Plan does not dissolve The United Methodist Church, but provides for its legal continuation through the Centrist UM Church. This is necessary in order to avoid constitutional amendments, which would require a 2/3 vote of General Conference and a 2/3 vote of all the annual conference members. This plan can be passed by a majority at General Conference and implemented immediately, rather than having to wait up to two years for the ratification vote. Legal continuation of the UM Church is also necessary because of legal issues that may need to be cared for in the process of separation that we may not even be aware of at this point.
But the Centrist UM Church will not simply be a continuation of The United Methodist Church as it currently exists. It will “do business as” the United Methodist name with a modifier. It will change its 48-year moral teachings and requirements around LGBT persons. It will consider making the United States its own central conference, able to adapt the Discipline differently in the U.S. than in other countries. It will undoubtedly change its structure to address the loss of perhaps one-third of its U.S. membership. Even the UMC Next Plan (from the centrists and progressives) envisions the creation of a “Commission on the 21st Century Church” that would “prepare a comprehensive structure and governance plan” to be enacted by a future General Conference. The Centrist UM Church will be in this sense a new denomination.
The Indianapolis Plan seeks to minimize the need for local congregations to vote as much as possible. Taking ideas from the Commission on a Way Forward proposals, this plan envisions central conferences and annual conferences voting on which denomination to align with. Only those local churches disagreeing with their annual conference alignment would need to vote. Because the General Conference cannot mandate that central conferences and annual conferences vote, the plan provides that U.S. annual conferences that do not vote would automatically become part of the Centrist UM Church. Central conferences and annual conferences outside the U.S. that do not vote would automatically become part of the Traditionalist UM Church. These defaults were determined based on our understanding of where most annual conferences would probably end up.
At the same time, it will be easy to trigger a vote in an annual conference. If the annual conference does not announce its intention to vote, any member can make a motion during the session of annual conference that it does take a vote. If the motion passes, the conference would have to take a vote. In addition, the plan allows the annual conference itself to call a special session of the annual conference if needed in order to take such a vote on alignment.
If the goal is to gain support across the theological spectrum for a fair and equitable plan that allows the different parts of the church to move easily into new denominations that can operate independently based on different theological perspectives, the Indianapolis Plan is best suited to accomplish that goal. Future blog posts will continue to explore the values and provisions of the Indianapolis Plan.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Sep 16, 2019 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
David F. Watson
By David F. Watson –
Many have noted that what we call “contemporary” worship isn’t so contemporary anymore. It’s a feature of the “attractional” model of church growth, embodied so well in Willow Creek and like-minded megachurches that popped up in the 80’s and 90’s.
The basic philosophy of the attractional model is that if we can create a church experience that reflects popular elements of the wider culture, people will like our churches enough to give up an hour of their time on Sunday morning. Once we have them in the building, we can begin to evangelize them. This model has been most effective with baby boomers. As the culture has continued to change, however, the question arises of whether or not we can become enough like the culture to attract the “unchurched,” or even to retain the “churched.”
At the outset, I’d like to clarify that my point isn’t to hammer on contemporary worship. I’ve worshiped in contemporary services many, many times. I’ve had some amazing experiences of God in contemporary services. I’ll worship in contemporary services many more times, and I anticipate that I will meet God in those services as well.
Perhaps, though, we who worship in such settings might consider incorporating some more traditional elements of Christian worship into our services.
I’m no expert on worship or liturgy, but I do care deeply about Christian formation, and worship forms us. How many Christians have grown up in services where the congregation never says the Lord’s Prayer (the Our Father)? How many have grown up in church and yet don’t know the Apostles’ Creed, and perhaps have never said the Nicene Creed? Worship forms us in the faith. The way we speak about God, the way we pray, the way we use Scripture, and the way we sing. Week after week, these practices shape our beliefs. As the old saying goes, lex orandi lex credenda — loosely translated, “as we pray, so we believe.”
Those of us who are concerned to preserve doctrinal orthodoxy in our traditions should take special note. We tend to use the word “orthodoxy” to mean “right doctrine,” but more literally it means “right praise.” The ways in which we praise God will shape what we believe about God. There are liturgical elements from the tradition that can help to shape our praise in service to the faith once and for all entrusted to the saints.
Recently I read a book by Winfied Bevins called Ever Ancient Ever New: The Allure of Liturgy for a New Generation (Zondervan, 2019). This is one of the supplementary readings for the DMin group that Justus Hunter and I lead at United Theological Seminary, called “Living the Historic Faith.” It’s a group about finding ways to reclaim some of the treasures of the Christian tradition for the church today. Bevins’s book was a natural fit.
I commend it to your reading. It’s both accessible and informative. It offers numerous real-life examples of young people who have been attracted to liturgical worship experiences, and it explains why they find such worship experiences so fulfilling. For example, Bevins writes:
“Moral and religious relativism has infiltrated the church and profoundly influenced the religious thinking of many young people. Thankfully, in some cases they are responding to this relativism in positive ways. Instead of embracing these nebulous and rootless beliefs, they are looking for firm ground on which to stand. Because they have not been introduced to creeds, confessions, and catechisms in the youth programs or discipleship ministries of their church, they are turning to other Christian traditions that embrace liturgy and creedal affirmations” (67).
Some of these young worshipers have joined the Roman Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church. Some have joined with the Anglican/Episcopal denominations. Others, however, have remained within evangelical or mainline churches but reincorporated time-honored practices of Christian worship into their services. Chapter 6, “Something Ancient, Something New,” focuses specifically on churches that have moved in this direction.
In many churches, if a service began with acolytes, a robed processional, and organ music, people would fall out of their chairs. But the reincorporation of liturgy doesn’t have to look like that. There are myriad ways in which historic practices around prayer, song, Scripture, creed, communion, and baptism can find their way into the lives of churches that have long been beholden to the attractional model. 
Think, for example, about the sacrament of Holy Communion. What are we doing when we celebrate communion? I realize that different traditions understand communion differently from one another. In my tradition however, communion is supposed to be more than a remembrance. Rather, we believe in the real presence of Christ in the communion elements. We are receiving Christ’s body and blood, and we believe that we are thereby transformed. Communion is a means of grace –– or, put differently, a reliable way in which we receive the transforming power of the Holy Spirit.
The basic idea is this: we were once dead in our sins, but because of Christ’s sacrifice we are alive. We get to celebrate what Christ has done for us, and thus we call our liturgy the “Great Thanksgiving.” We begin with a confession of sin, we pronounce forgiveness over one another, we recite God’s mighty acts of salvation, we remember Christ’s instructions to his disciples during his final meal with them, and then we call upon the Holy Spirit to move us from remembrance to sacrament.
Pour out your Holy Spirit on us gathered here, and on these gifts of bread and wine. Make them be for us the body and blood of Christ, that we may be for the world the body of Christ, redeemed by his blood.
By your Spirit make us one with Christ, one with each other, and one in ministry to all the world, until Christ comes in final victory, and we feast at his heavenly banquet.
Through your Son Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit in your holy church, all honor and glory is yours, almighty Father, now and forever.
I don’t know how many times I’ve recited that part of the liturgy, but without exception when I do I’m confronted by the sacredness of the moment. In the liturgy we are marking off sacred space, setting ourselves apart. We are entering into communion with a holy God, and God in turn blesses us with the real presence of Christ as we eat and drink.
Church today doesn’t have to look like mid-twentieth century “traditional” mainline Protestant worship, but neither does it have to look like 1980’s evangelicalism. We can bring together the ancient and the new in ways that will enliven the faith of our worshipers each Sunday.
David Watson is the academic dean and professor of New Testament at United Theological Seminary in Dayton, Ohio. This article first appeared on his blog HERE. Dr. Watson is the author of Scripture and the Life of God (Seedbed) and co-author of Key United Methodist Beliefs with William J. Abraham (Abingdon).
by Steve | Sep 9, 2019 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
Minneapolis Convention Center, location of the 2020 United Methodist General Conference. Photo: Meet Minneapolis.
By Tom Lambrecht –
As I participate in conversations around the church seeking a way to resolve the crisis facing The United Methodist Church, I have become aware that different people have different goals. A person’s top priority will affect how they evaluate a particular plan or strategy that is proposed to move our church forward. It is helpful to identify some of those top priorities and how they affect our perceptions about the various plans.
One top priority I have heard is the desire to avoid pain or minimize change. “Don’t make us vote!” is one manifestation of this priority. Some want to keep going as we are because they are afraid of the pain involved in facing our crisis and attempting to resolve it. “Our congregation is doing all right now. Please don’t do something that will cause an upheaval that tears our church apart.”
These people will not look kindly on a plan that raises up the issues that divide us, asking individuals and congregations to make a choice. But this approach ignores the fact that change is coming, whether we like it or not. It is not possible for The United Methodist Church to continue as it is. The rapid decline of membership, attendance, and giving in the U.S. is precipitating change, quite apart from the conflict we face.
On top of that, no congregation is going to be able to escape defining its theology and ministry around LGBTQ persons. Sooner or later, someone is going to ask to have their same-sex wedding in your church. How will you answer? Given the fact that a large percentage of clergy across the country in our church favor same-sex marriage and the affirmation of same-sex relationships, your church may soon (if it hasn’t already) receive a pastor who will try to convince your congregation to adopt a progressive view on these questions.
We cannot avoid the pain of living in a culture that is becoming increasingly permissive when it comes to human sexuality. We can allow the culture to determine our ministry standards and moral teachings, or we can study the Scriptures and our Christian tradition to come up with a faithful response. As when facing any painful experience, it is often better to face the pain head-on and get it over with. As my parents used to say, the sooner you “bite the bullet” and go through the pain, the sooner you can heal and move on in a positive direction. That is why the 2020 General Conference ought to seek a once and for all resolution to our church’s crisis. It is time to move on, and the only way we can create a positive future for our church is to go through the pain of birthing a new reality.
Another top priority that I hear a lot is the need to “win.” A number of people have written or said to me that they believe a negotiated separation is to “surrender” the fight and betray the victory that we “won” in 2019 at St. Louis. I agree that the St. Louis General Conference was a strong victory for the traditional Scriptural teaching on marriage and sexuality. But what does that victory look like now? We have a church in turmoil, with large segments of the church refusing to submit to the decision of General Conference. The only way to achieve a lasting “victory” in this scenario is to drive out of the church those who are unwilling to live by our teachings, including a significant number of bishops. Some might leave voluntarily, but others are determined to stay and cause as much pain as possible through resistance. We have to ask: is the “victory” worth the cost?
The leadership of “UMC Next,” a new LGBTQ-advocacy caucus, is bent on “winning” in Minneapolis next May. They believe they have a chance to win because they made significant gains in electing a delegation sympathetic to reversing the St. Louis decision. Many of them are not willing to compromise. They want to change the church’s teaching on marriage and sexuality to become more permissive and force evangelical traditionalists to leave. (We would be unable to stay because changing the church’s teaching would violate our principled obedience to God and Scripture.)
Those bent on “winning” on either side are not in favor of a negotiated separation because they believe it is too much of a compromise. Some even describe it as a “sellout.” Why should we “surrender” when we won the vote in 2019? Why should we “surrender” when we won the annual conference elections this past spring? We should double down on our previous strategy because “victory” is within our grasp.
The “win the battle” factions on both sides would set us up for an even more ugly General Conference in 2020 than what we experienced in St. Louis. Some are so committed to winning that they are willing to use any means to do so, including lying, deception, slander, personal attack, parliamentary tricks, and just plain bullying. The spectacle of the church in conflict that was broadcast to the world from St. Louis was not a flattering one. It did not demonstrate Christ-like love or integrity. Do we want an even worse battle next year? Whether the result of the battle is a traditionalist victory with some progressives leaving or a progressive victory with some traditionalists leaving, what will be birthed will be forever tainted by the ugly manner of its birth.
Let me be clear that, if there is no viable alternative, I am fully prepared to work tirelessly to preserve the church’s faithfulness to the Bible and the Gospel (see below). I would do so with as much integrity and honor as God’s grace would enable within me. But Jesus warns us we should count the cost of such a course of action.
Another bottom line concern of some United Methodists is getting or hanging on to as much of the church’s assets as possible. Some have accused evangelicals of being “all about the money.” The leaders of “Mainstream UMC,” another special interest caucus group, are lobbying hard to keep as much of the church’s assets as possible, even to the extent of distorting the truth.
I believe that whatever new expressions or denominations are formed out of The United Methodist Church over the next few years should receive a fair allocation of the general church’s $1 billion in assets. Many of those assets may not be accessible for allocation due to legal restrictions or the fact that they are in property, rather than liquid form. For one expression to get or keep all the assets would be unfair. We have all contributed to those assets, regardless of our theological perspective. For generations, Methodists have contributed to the economic stability of our denomination that included a historically traditional view of marriage and sexuality.
Some social media provocateurs have claimed that evangelicals have failed to contribute our fair share toward the ministry of the church. Like so much of the flamboyant rhetoric these days, that charge is pure fantasy. There are thousands of evangelical churches who have faithfully and sacrificially contributed financially through apportionments over the years. And the money that has been contributed to the church is now the church’s money — it does not belong to those who originally gave it. It was given for the sake of mission and ministry, and it can fulfill that purpose in any of the denominations that are formed. Money should not be used as a weapon in our current conflict.
We should seek a fair distribution of the church’s assets. It is one way to treat each other with love and respect, despite our disagreement. It communicates that the church is not forcing one group out, but rather that we are mutually agreeing to separate for the sake of the church’s mission.
But the failure to receive a fair allocation of the assets should not prevent us from moving forward into a faithful future. A blogger friend recently reminded his readers that when Solomon was faced with the dilemma of the baby claimed by two mothers, the true mother was the one who was willing to let her baby go to save its life, rather than cling to the “half” of the baby that would kill it (I Kings 3:16ff.). Jesus said, “Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; life does not consist in an abundance of possessions” (Luke 12:15). Proverbs wisely states, “Better a little with the fear of the Lord than great wealth with turmoil. Better a small serving of vegetables with love than a fattened calf with hatred” (15:16-17).
My own top priority in developing a way forward is to arrive at a church that is faithful to Scripture and to the doctrines of the church, and is in a position to be fruitful in mission and ministry. Right now, there are many who are not faithful to Scripture and the doctrines of the church, not only with regard to marriage and the church’s moral teachings, but also with regard to the foundational doctrines of the church. For many, Scripture is no longer the primary authority by which we measure our beliefs. Some do not believe Jesus Christ is the divine Son of the living God and only Savior of the world. Many annual conferences have allowed doctrinal relativism and even universalism to become accepted doctrinal positions among their clergy.
Because of this doctrinal confusion, local church members are not being discipled in the faith. Instead, they hear one belief system from one pastor, then a contradictory belief system from the next pastor assigned to their church. Many laity do not know what to believe. As Jesus lamented over the people of Israel, they are “sheep without a shepherd.” How can our church be fruitful in ministry amidst such doctrinal confusion? It cannot, and we see the membership decline to prove it.
Furthermore, the conflict in our church is hindering our fruitfulness in ministry. No one wants to join a church that is fighting. And no one wants to join a church that does not know what it believes. Millions of dollars and thousands of hours are devoted to winning the conflict that could be better spent in spreading the Gospel and helping the poor. What we are doing is not bringing honor to Jesus Christ.
I am for a plan (whatever it is) that resolves our conflict once and for all, that enables at least a portion of The United Methodist Church to unite together in common doctrine, and that frees us to be wholeheartedly devoted to carrying out the mission of making disciples of Jesus Christ with the result that the world is transformed.
We could get to such an outcome by continuing to stand strong for the traditional teachings of the church regarding marriage and sexuality, while hoping that those who cannot live by those teachings would voluntarily leave the church. But such a course of action will probably take another 20 years of fighting the same battles for accountability and working hard to reform the general church agencies to make them effective for fostering ministry fruitfulness. If we have to go that direction, I am willing to do so, and the Renewal and Reform Coalition will be submitting petitions to General Conference to further strengthen accountability.
However, I would rather get to a faithful and fruitful church more quickly than in 20 years. I only have a few years of active ministry left, and I would like to spend them in service of a church moving forward in a positive direction. If a negotiated settlement can be worked out that is mutually respectful and relatively equal and fair, that would resolve the conflict and free us for faithful ministry in the months after General Conference, I think we should take it. We continue to prayerfully commit ourselves to God’s guidance in working toward that best outcome.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Sep 2, 2019 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
Minneapolis Convention Center, location of the 2020 United Methodist General Conference. Photo: Meet Minneapolis
By Thomas Lambrecht –
The deadline for submitting petitions to General Conference 2020 is less than three weeks away. So far, three major plans for “separation” have been released. More are in the works.
The UMC Next Plan proposes to remove all the restrictions in the Book of Discipline regarding clergy performing same-sex weddings and self-avowed practicing homosexuals being ordained as clergy. At the same time, it would provide a way for traditionalist local churches and clergy who want to maintain the current stance of our church a way to leave the denomination with their property.
The Bard-Jones Plan proposes to create three new denominations — progressive, centrist, and traditional — by allowing annual conferences and local churches to withdraw from The United Methodist Church. By 2025, there would be no more members in The United Methodist Church.
The Indianapolis Plan (of which I am a member of the development team) proposes to birth two new denominations — a traditionalist church that maintains the current stance of the church and a centrist/progressive church that removes all the restrictions regarding LGBTQ marriage and ordination. Other additional “branches” could also emerge under this plan, including a progressive church that mandates same-sex marriage and LGBTQ ordination for all. The current structure of the UM Church would persist in the centrist/progressive church, although leaders of that group say they want to make significant changes in how the denomination would function. The traditionalist church and any other expression formed under this proposal would have the opportunity to write their own Book of Discipline, while borrowing whatever is helpful from the current one.
It is important to understand the big picture of what each of these plans is trying to accomplish.
The UMC Next Plan wants a United Methodist Church that continues much as it is today, but without the restrictions on LGBTQ marriage and ordination. It would force individual local churches to vote (by a 2/3 majority) to leave the UM Church if they could not abide the removal of these restrictions. It is an attempt to enact the One Church Plan, only this time with an exit for traditionalists that centrists attempted to deny in St. Louis. Essentially, it would reverse the decision made by the 2019 Special General Conference.
The Bard-Jones Plan would result in the dissolving of the denomination. The three new denominations would share some general boards and agencies, while most other agencies would continue with the centrist church. While all three could share the cross and flame, none could use the UMC name (just “Methodist”). There are some constitutional, as well as some practical, concerns as to whether this approach can work. I have written more about it here.
The Indianapolis Plan is an attempt to create a process for a relatively equal, amicable separation to take place in the UM Church. It envisions at least two, and probably more, new churches growing out of the existing UM Church. All would be legal successors of the UM Church and share in its doctrinal heritage. All could use the United Methodist name with a geographical or theological modifier (but are not required to do so). All could use a modified version of the cross and flame. Annual conferences would vote first (by majority vote) on aligning with one of the proposed denominations, minimizing the need for local churches to vote. There would be some type of division of general church assets among the new expressions.
However, the Indianapolis Plan does NOT dissolve The United Methodist Church. The centrist/progressive branch would continue to operate according to the current Discipline and carry with it most of the current structure of the church.
There are several reasons why The United Methodist Church should not be dissolved.
General Conference cannot force annual conferences to take a vote on aligning with one of the proposed expressions. Those that do not take a vote need to have a default place to land, which would most likely be the centrist/progressive church in the U.S. So it makes the most sense for this group to carry on the United Methodist structure.
There may be legal aspects that fall between the cracks. Having a continuing United Methodist Church would make it easier to care for these details after the realignment.
Many United Methodists do not want to see the church dissolve, particularly in the central conferences outside the U.S. This plan keeps the UM Church relatively intact for those who desire it.
Some have questioned why the centrist/progressive church should be the continuation of The United Methodist Church and not the traditionalist branch, since the traditionalists prevailed in the voting at the 2019 General Conference. The short answer to this question is that many traditionalists believe the current structure of the UM Church, with its many boards and agencies, has become more of a liability than an asset to the ministry of the local church. While the general church agencies do accomplish some valuable work on behalf of the denomination, there are also many instances where their efforts are ineffective or even counterproductive to the goal of making disciples of Jesus Christ. The financial resources needed to maintain a highly structured bureaucracy might be better spent in a leaner structure that would free more resources for mission and ministry locally and globally.
It is also true that nearly every general agency operates from a more progressive understanding of the church. All the agencies except one endorsed the One Church Plan. Were the agencies to be given to the traditionalist church, substantial changes in personnel and program would be needed. Many traditionalists believe our efforts would be better spent designing a new type of leaner structure better suited for the 21st century reality than trying to reform a 20th century structure that is no longer effective.
With all the efforts the Indianapolis group has made to provide for an equitable separation, it is disheartening to hear repeated criticisms that this plan is simply “dissolution” under another name. A critique by the Rev. Dr. Stan Copeland recently published by Mainstream UMC unfortunately misrepresents the Indianapolis Plan in order to attack it as a “dissolution” plan.
Copeland first blames the Indianapolis group for not revealing all the authors/endorsers of the plan. However, the list of those who worked on the plan and allowed their names to be displayed with it was shared with UM News Service and linked in the story about the release of the plan. Copeland’s charge that “it should be general knowledge by now that there was not a consensus bringing the Indy Plan to the table” is false. There was one person involved in the conversation who declined to sign off on the plan. The other 12 participants all agreed to place their names as persons who worked on the plan. Since the plan is still under development, no final endorsement was asked of any of the participants.
A question to which Copeland gives no answer is, “What does it mean to ‘dissolve’ the UM Church?” In my way of thinking, it means that The United Methodist Church ceases to exist, replaced by successor denomination(s). Under that definition, only the Bard-Jones Plan is a “dissolution plan.” Under that plan, the UM Church would have no members as of 2025.
Under the Indianapolis Plan, The United Methodist Church continues to exist under the auspices of the centrist/progressive church. The centrist/progressive church envisions significant changes to the UM Church in this scenario, including removing all the restrictions related to LGBTQ marriage and ordination, as well as perhaps adding the notion of the U.S. as its own central conference. Structural changes will be needed as well, but these will come no matter which plan is adopted, due to the departure of at least some members and the financial retrenchment taking place in the general church.
Copeland asks, “If the Indy Plan is NOT a move to dissolve the denomination, then why could not the United Methodist Church General Conference 2020 simply birth a new expression — a Traditionalist United Methodist Church?” This question illustrates the difference between leaving and separating. In leaving, there are winners and losers, those who stay and those who go. In separating, all parties are treated as equally as possible. No one party has the advantage. The goal of the Indianapolis Plan, as well as the desire of Good News and the Renewal and Reform Coalition, has been to find a way forward that treats all groups equally and has no winners or losers. Otherwise, we might as well just continue the fight that was begun in St. Louis. To move past the fight, we need to move past the win/lose dichotomy to a fair and equitable separation.
Copeland then asks, “If this is NOT dissolution then why cannot the Centrist/Progressive branch that would be the ‘legal’ continuation and be responsible for the boards and agencies be The United Methodist Church?” The Indianapolis Plan envisions all successor groups being able (but not required) to use the name “United Methodist” with a modifier to distinguish one group from another. Some United Methodists care deeply about keeping the name, while others do not. One group that is deeply committed to keeping the “United Methodist” name is the church in Africa. However, African delegates and leaders have told us repeatedly they could not remain in a church that allows same-sex marriage and LGBTQ ordination. Copeland’s plan (and the UMC Next Plan) would force the Africans to choose between keeping the name and being faithful to their theological principles. To choose the latter would impose great difficulties on their churches in countries where freedom of religion is not always allowed by law or practice. It is mainly for their sake that we have consistently advocated for all groups to have access to the name. After all, all groups are equally historical successors to The United Methodist Church.
When the early ideas behind the Indianapolis Plan were first being informally circulated for feedback from various constituencies, our group heard from some centrists that they thought the plan was a form of dissolution. That is why we chose to specifically add a provision that stipulates that The United Methodist Church is not dissolving, but continuing structurally under the auspices of the centrist/progressive church. Now we are faced with an accusation from Copeland, “It’s been my experience that when persons or groups go out of their way to say what something ‘is not’ it usually IS at least a version of what is being denied.” Apparently, we are being criticized by some centrists for not clarifying what our plan does, while at the same time being criticized by other centrists for trying to offer the desired clarity. It makes one wonder whether this “critique” is a good faith effort or merely an attempt to misrepresent and slander a plan that is different from the one many centrists want to put forward — a plan to drive traditionalists out of The United Methodist Church.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Feb 20, 2019 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
Dr. Chappell Temple
By Chappell Temple –
I’ve been getting their emails and letters almost every day, so it seems. In preparation for the upcoming General Conference of The United Methodist Church in St. Louis, a group advocating for one of the plans being proposed has been more than “methodical” about getting their message out.
The problem is, however, that “Mainstream UMC” seems to have a more casual relationship with truth than I think is merited. And in terms of respectful dialogue with those who think differently, they’ve exhibited instead a censorious and unkind spirit at best, and a downright slanderous one at worst.
They’ve suggested, for instance, that the advocates of maintaining our current stance on homosexuality have “recreated the climate of 1844” when the Methodist Church split over slavery. But the traditionalists are not proposing a split at all, only a continuation of what the greater church has repeatedly and increasingly believed to be a faithful response to some of these difficult questions.
They’ve claimed that the Commission on the Way Forward (COWF), which created the three plans that will be before the delegates in St. Louis, dåid not introduce the idea of a gracious exit, but that’s simply untrue. It was originally in every one of the three plans that the COWF developed until the bishops took it out when they reviewed those plans.
They’ve said that only a “few rogue bishops” hastily wrote the Traditional Plan. But they neglected to mention that the reason that plan was assembled rather quickly was that the bishops as a group told the Commission not to work on it and then, as the Commission was winding everything up, they changed their minds and reluctantly agreed to include that option after all.
They’ve likewise almost libelously labeled two of our bishops, Scott Jones and Gary Mueller, as “WCA bishops,” referring to the Wesleyan Covenant Association, simply because they accepted the invitation to attend a meeting of that group of United Methodists. Indeed, in contrast to many of his progressive colleagues, Bishop Jones has gone out of his way to remain neutral and not endorse any of the three plans publicly.
They’ve warned that there’s simply not time to carefully craft any exit plans before 2020, despite the fact that numerous folks have been working on them for more than a year and versions have been available for delegates to read since the early fall. And some even falsely accused Maxie Dunnam of promoting the exit plan so that traditional churches can get money from the denomination on their way out, when the truth is that he did so to help progressive congregations who may not wish to stay if the current standards are maintained.
They’ve misrepresented the One Church Plan as not requiring anyone to change their positions if they chose not to do so, when in reality it will change our denomination’s definition of marriage for everyone. And should the plan pass, traditional United Methodists will still be forced to pay into an episcopal fund that underwrites openly partnered gay bishops. What’s more, even many proponents of the One Church Plan have admitted publicly that it’s simply a transitional step towards an eventual mandate for full inclusion by the whole denomination.
Most of all, Mainstream UMC has, in a dazzling display of redirection, argued that traditionalists are simply trying to force the church into schism when in truth it is progressives who have blatantly disobeyed our Discipline that have already done so. For I have heard of no conservatives who have broken their ordination vows, disobeyed church law, ignored our covenant, or blatantly defied the discernment of the whole church in favor of their personal opinions or beliefs regarding this issue.
It’s one thing to argue a position and try to persuade others to adopt it. But in misrepresenting the facts so blatantly, and twisting the position of their opponents so maliciously, so-called “Mainstream” proponents of the One Church Plan have plainly turned from progressives into simply pro-aggressives.
And if that sentiment prevails, I have a feeling that the decline in our worship attendance – already almost one million down from just 18 years ago – will only get worse.
Chappell Temple is the lead pastor of Christ United Methodist Church in Sugar Land, Texas, a southwestern suburb of Houston. He is a General Conference delegate from the Texas Annual Conference. This guest commentary appeared on ChappellTemple.com. It is republished by permission.
