As the upcoming General Conference considers the three plans from the Commission on a Way Forward and other proposals for resolving the conflict in our denomination, one question many want to consider is: How will this proposal affect my local church? After all, it is the local church where the “rubber meets the road,” so to speak, where Gospel ministry is actualized in the daily lives of members and where personal outreach into communities takes place. The biggest concern we members of the Commission on a Way Forward heard from people was: Do not do something that will damage my local church’s ministry, whether by requiring us to vote or in some other way.
The first important piece of information to note is that local churches will not have a vote as to which plan is enacted by General Conference. Our method of decision-making as a denomination is by representative democracy, not congregationalism. We elect representatives to annual conference, and they elect representatives to General Conference. It is those representatives who are tasked with making decisions on behalf of the whole denomination. Even in the case of constitutional amendments, it is the annual conference that votes whether to ratify them, not the local church.
Some have wondered whether a survey of local church members would help us know how to resolve the conflict. While such information might be helpful to the decision makers, we entrust our representatives with the responsibility of making those decisions, in part because they work to keep themselves well-informed on the issues and ramifications involved-better-informed than most local church members. In theory, these representatives will be in regular touch with their fellow parishioners and colleagues, so that they get a sense of how the people they represent are thinking. The logistical challenges of surveying members outside the U.S. and the cost and time involved have made surveys very difficult.
OCP and the Local Church
The One Church Plan (OCP) would enact a “local option” for annual conferences and congregations in making decisions about same-sex marriage and ordaining homosexual persons. How will this impact local churches?
Local churches that want to host same-sex weddings in their buildings would need to take a vote at a church conference to approve such services. All it would take would be a request from a member or the relative of a member for the church to host such a wedding, and the church would have to face that question. Such a discussion is likely to be divisive in the congregation. How divisive it is depends upon how diverse the theological opinions of the congregation members are and how well the pastor and church leaders handle the conversation over this question. Some congregations have experienced a forceful movement on the part of a group of members to affirm same-sex marriage that has alienated members opposed to such affirmation. The result has been to cause some members who disagreed with the church’s decision to leave the church.
The fact that pastors would be able to perform same-sex weddings would also affect their local churches. Pastors would not need the permission of their annual conference or their local church to do such weddings outside of the church property. A pastor performing same-sex weddings could alienate members of his or her congregation who disagree with that decision. If a majority or even a significant minority of the congregation disagrees with a pastor performing same-sex weddings, that could impact the ability of the pastor to effectively serve that congregation.
There are likely to be more pastors willing to perform same-sex weddings than there are churches willing to have a pastor who performs same-sex weddings. This could cause a mismatch between pastor and congregation when new pastors are appointed. It will cause hardship for the bishop and cabinet in making appointments because pastors are guaranteed an appointment, and there may not be enough churches available to which a bishop can appoint a pastor who is willing to perform same-sex weddings. So a local church that does not want such a pastor may get one anyway. Or a local church might receive a pastor who is not a good match for the congregation in other ways, simply based on the criterion of whether or not the pastor is willing to perform same-sex weddings. In such cases, the local church will have little recourse but to receive the pastor the bishop appoints.
The same is true regarding openly gay pastors. If an annual conference is willing to ordain openly gay persons as clergy, they will need to be appointed to churches willing to receive them. Even if the annual conference does not ordain openly gay clergy, there will be some clergy in that conference who come out as gay and will need to be appointed. There may not be enough congregations willing to receive an openly gay pastor in that annual conference, but the bishop will need to appoint such clergy anyway. In such cases, the local church will have little recourse but to receive the pastor the bishop appoints.
MTP and the Local Church
The Modified Traditional Plan (MTP) continues the current stance of the denomination that pastors are not allowed to perform same-sex weddings and annual conferences/bishops are not allowed to ordain openly gay persons as clergy. If a local church agrees with that position or is willing to continue abiding by that position (whether it agrees or not), the local church will not need to take any action. Since all pastors would be held to the same standard, this issue would not factor into the appointment of pastors to local churches.
If a local church wants to host same-sex weddings or receive an openly gay pastor, it will need to consider the possibility of leaving the denomination in order to do so. The MTP has a provision (amended as a result of the Judicial Council Decision 1366) allowing local churches to leave after a 2/3 vote by the church leadership and also a 2/3 vote by the church members at a church conference. The local church would have to pay its proportionate share of its annual conference’s pension liabilities, as determined by Wespath (board of pensions) and the annual conference apportionment formula. The church’s annual conference would also need to approve the local church’s exit by a 2/3 vote.
The MTP allows annual conferences that wish to affirm the practice of homosexuality and ordain openly gay persons as pastors to withdraw from the denomination. Such a decision would require a majority vote of the annual conference. If a local church agrees with the decision of its annual conference to leave the denomination, it would not need to take any action. If a local church in an annual conference that decides to leave The United Methodist Church wants to stay in the denomination, it could do so by a majority vote of its members at a church conference. In such case, the local church would have to pay its proportionate share of its annual conference’s pension liabilities, since the annual conference would continue to be responsible for those liabilities, even if the annual conference leaves the denomination.
CCP and the Local Church
The Connectional Conference Plan (CCP) would create three new “jurisdictions” called connectional conferences in the U.S. based on views concerning same-sex marriage and ordination. A “progressive” connectional conference would require same-sex marriage and the ordination of otherwise qualified openly gay persons as clergy. A “unity” connectional conference would allow same-sex marriage and ordination, but not require it. A “traditional “connectional conference would not allow same-sex marriage and ordination.
Current geographical jurisdictions and annual conferences would make the first decisions by majority vote as to which connectional conference to affiliate with. If a local church disagrees with the decision of its annual conference, that local church could vote to join a different connectional conference by majority vote of its members at a church conference. That local church would then be joined with other like-minded local churches in a new annual conference in the chosen connectional conference. Pastors would be appointed to local churches only within the chosen connectional conferences and would share the local church’s views on marriage and sexuality.
Exit Paths and the Local Church
The other proposal that could affect local churches is that of an exit path allowing congregations to leave the denomination with their property. The exit path for individual congregations under the MTP (thanks to the Judicial Council ruling) would require a 2/3 vote of both the leaders and members of the congregation, as well as a 2/3 vote of the annual conference. Such a high bar, particularly involving the annual conference, lessens the value of the MTP exit path for congregations.
Many delegates agree that some form of uniform and gracious exit path ought to be established for use with whatever plan passes. (The OCP and the CCP have no exit path for congregations.)
There are five different proposed exit paths submitted to General Conference. Most of them require a 2/3 vote of the members of the congregation, but no vote by the leaders or by the annual conference. This more streamlined process might make leaving the denomination more attractive to local churches that are frustrated by the seemingly endless conflict in our church, whether they be “progressive” or “traditionalist.”
Of course, if General Conference passes no exit path and the OCP is adopted, many local churches will still want to exit from the denomination. At that point, unless they can gain the permission of their annual conference bishop and leaders, it seems logical to expect that the next stop would be the courtroom. Lawsuits for property can work sometimes, but not always, and they would expend a lot of resources, both by the local church and by the annual conference. The decision by a local church to pursue this route would be a difficult one.
The Plans and Membership Loss
So far, we have talked about the impact of the various plans on what actions might be taken by local churches. There is another large variable out there, however: how will individual members respond to the decisions of General Conference?
Undoubtedly, many members will not be tuned in to the actions of General Conference or will not feel strongly enough about the conflicted issues involved that they would take action. However, many members who are committed to either the “progressive” or “traditionalist” viewpoint are very aware of what is going on in the church. They often form the core leadership and financial support for local congregations. And these persons might react strongly to a decision that they disagree with. This will be particularly true if the actions of General Conference end up as the headline in their local newspaper or newscast on February 27.
If the MTP is passed, one can envision “progressive” members no longer able to support a denomination they believe is practicing unjust discrimination against LGBTQ persons. This might affect their willingness to financially support a local congregation and might lead them to leave for a nearby Episcopal, Congregational, Lutheran, or Presbyterian church.
If the OCP is passed, one can envision “traditionalist” members no longer able to support a denomination that is promoting a behavior they believe contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture. Where there is not an evangelical UM congregation nearby that they can join, it might prompt them to at least curtail financial support of the church or, more likely, leave for a nearby non-denominational, Baptist, or other evangelical congregation.
The loss of valued members who disagree with the decision of General Conference will vary from one congregation to the next. But it is a factor that pastors and congregational leaders will need to take into consideration as they plan for a new post-General Conference reality.
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.
There are four comprehensive plans being considered by the special General Conference in February in an attempt to resolve the deep theological conflict within our church. Three of the plans (Traditional Plan, Connectional Conference Plan, and One Church Plan) were offered as part of the report of the Commission on a Way Forward. The fourth plan is the Simple Plan, offered by the Queer Clergy Caucus.
The Renewal and Reform Coalition is supporting the Modified Traditional Plan (MTP). The MTP is basically the Traditional Plan with the addition of two petitions submitted by Maxie Dunnam. In an effort to dispel any lingering confusion, here is what the MTP (TP+) entails.
What is in the Traditional Plan?
The Traditional Plan is the only plan that maintains the current teachings and requirements of the church defining marriage as between one man and one woman, declaring all persons as created in God’s image, of sacred worth and welcome in the church’s ministries, forbidding clergy from performing same-sex weddings, and forbidding annual conferences from ordaining self-avowed practicing homosexuals. Under this plan, this would remain the position of the whole church (not just parts of it).
The Traditional Plan understands that the crisis we face is not one of different opinions, but of different practices. Twelve annual conferences in the U.S. have declared in one way or another that they will not be bound by the requirements of the church regarding same-sex marriage and ordination. These activist annual conferences are responsible for the current split within the denomination. The most effective way to restore unity is to require uniform standards of ordination and church practice regarding same-sex weddings. Restoring unity will therefore require greater accountability measures in order to ensure that the requirements of the Discipline are kept.
Solely because of the disregard for our denomination’s standards for marriage and sexuality, the Traditional Plan must include these enhancements:
The definition of a self-avowed practicing homosexual (thus not eligible for ordination) is expanded to include those living in a same-sex marriage or union or those who publicly state they are practicing homosexuals (Petition #1).
Measures are enacted to ensure that members of the Board of Ordained Ministry are committed to abiding by the requirements for ordination in the Discipline, and that those who are not qualified will not be recommended for ordination, commissioned, ordained, or consecrated (Petitions #5-9, 12).
Annual conferences are required to vote on whether or not they will uphold and enforce the Discipline. If not, they would no longer be entitled to use the name United Methodist or the cross and flame insignia, and they would not be able to give or receive funds through the general church. Such annual conferences would be encouraged (not required) to withdraw from the denomination and form a new, self-governing (progressive) Methodist church (Petition #10).
Bishops would be required to certify whether or not they would uphold and enforce the Discipline. If not, they would be encouraged (not required) to withdraw from the denomination and help form a new, self-governing (progressive) Methodist church (Petition #10). Bishops committing acts of disobedience would be subject to charges and possible trial.
Clergy convicted in a church trial of performing a same-sex wedding would be subject to a minimum penalty of one year suspension without pay for the first offense and removal of credentials for a second offense (Petition #11).
Bishops could no longer dismiss a complaint for any reason (or no reason). They could only dismiss a complaint if it had no basis in law or in fact (Petition #13). Bishops who improperly dismiss a complaint would be subject to charges.
The process of resolving a complaint through a “just resolution” would need to include the person who filed the complaint at every step. The person charged would have to recommit to upholding the Discipline, particularly those provisions under which they were charged (Petition #14-15).
The church could appeal a trial court verdict if there were egregious errors of church law or administration (Petition #16).
The Traditional Plan is the only plan that provides a gracious exit for those unwilling to live within the boundaries established by the Book of Discipline. This gracious exit is not required, but is available for annual conferences, groups of congregations, individual congregations, bishops, and clergy. They would be able to form or join a new, self-governing (progressive) Methodist church that is separate from the UM Church.
Annual conferences could withdraw from the denomination by majority vote. They would continue to be responsible for their pension liabilities and could sponsor a new pension plan with Wespath. They could also become a “concordat church” and contract for services from United Methodist boards and agencies, participate in mission partnerships, and support joint mission projects (Petition #10, 17).
Individual congregations or groups of 50 or more congregations could withdraw from the denomination upon a 2/3 majority vote and with the approval of their annual conference (also by a 2/3 majority vote). The only payment they would need to make is to cover the congregation’s share of their annual conference’s unfunded pension liabilities. These local churches could also participate in pension programs, mission, and ministry through the new, self-governing Methodist church that they would join (Petition #10, 17).
Bishops and clergy could transfer to the new, self-governing Methodist church upon approval by the receiving denomination (Petition #10).
Any new self-governing Methodist church formed by those exiting the denomination could become a “concordat church” that maintains a connection through voluntary partnerships and eligibility to participate in some United Methodist programs (Petition #17).
How does the MTP differ from the Traditional Plan?
There are two kinds of modifications that the MTP brings to the Traditional Plan. The first kind of modifications takes into account Judicial Council Decision 1366, which ruled a number of provisions of the Traditional Plan unconstitutional. Only six of the original 17 petitions can be adopted as printed. Three petitions (#2-4) cannot be adopted at all, and the rest need amendments in order to bring them into compliance with the Judicial Council decision. The amendments will actually improve the plan, as well as satisfying the letter of the law under the Constitution. The amendments are relatively straightforward and will be made public soon in order to give delegates a chance to consider them.
The second kind of modifications that the MTP brings to the Traditional Plan are a few additions that strengthen and perfect the Traditional Plan as originally proposed. The original version stayed very close to the sketch provided by the Commission on a Way Forward. Since that sketch, proponents of the Traditional Plan have identified ways to strengthen the accountability and graciousness of the plan and submitted those modifications in two petitions by Maxie Dunnam.
The first petition creates a new global committee to handle complaints against bishops. This global process replaces the original accountability process that was declared unconstitutional (Petitions #2-4 of the Traditional Plan). This global committee, made up of one clergy or lay member from every annual conference in the world, would administer complaints against bishops. Since the complaint process would not involve bishops holding other bishops accountable, it would get around the built-in conflict of interest in the current accountability process. Since bishops are colleagues and members together of the Council of Bishops and the College of Bishops (where accountability lies), it is difficult for them to hold each other accountable. The track record of the episcopal accountability process is very poor, with no bishop facing a church trial in 50 years. Many legitimate complaints have been dismissed or otherwise finessed over the years to protect bishops from accountability. This new process is needed in order to restore accountability for bishops.
The second petition actually substitutes for Petition #10 in the Traditional Plan. It is identical to that petition except for the following additions:
Allegations that an annual conference is not upholding or enforcing the Discipline would be submitted to the global committee established by the first petition. The committee would investigate the complaints against the annual conference and could recommend necessary remedial actions or recommend that the conference be placed on the sanctioned list. Such recommendation would need to be approved by General Conference and could result in the conference losing its ability to use the United Methodist name and cross and flame insignia, as well as being unable to give or receive money through the general church. This provides an accountability mechanism for annual conferences.
Bishops who refused to uphold and enforce the Discipline would no longer receive from the general church expense money for housing, office, or travel, thus enhancing accountability.
Any annual conference withdrawing from the denomination would receive a one-time grant of $200,000 to help defray the costs of disaffiliation (mostly legal and administrative costs). This is part of the effort to provide as much grace as possible to the gracious exit.
The two Dunnam petitions need amendments to bring them into compliance with Judicial Council Decision 1366.
A technical correction to this petition makes explicit that the plan takes effect upon the adjournment of General Conference, rather than waiting until January 1, 2020.
The MTP makes very few changes to the Traditional Plan, but they are important ones. It proposes adoption of 13 of the 17 original petitions, amended to comply with Judicial Council rulings. And it adds two petitions submitted by Maxie Dunnam, also amended to comply with Judicial Council rulings.
The Renewal and Reform Coalition believes that the Modified Traditional Plan provides the best path to unity for The United Methodist Church. It maintains unity of practice and standards in our global denomination, rather than allowing each part of the church to create its own practices and standards. It maintains unity with Scripture, 2,000 years of Christian teaching, and the tradition of the church. It allows the creation of a unity based on willing participation and willing compliance with the covenant created by General Conference, while giving those unwilling to participate a gracious way out of the covenant to create their own denomination with standards they are willing to uphold.
Based on surveys and conversation, the Modified Traditional Plan is the way to keep most evangelicals and traditionalists in The United Methodist Church. Up to 90 percent of evangelical leaders have told us they would find it necessary to leave the denomination if the One Church passes. But very few evangelicals are planning to leave if the MTP is enacted. Most will wait to see if the accountability measures restore unity and compliance. The MTP is the best way to keep our connection with global United Methodists, who overwhelmingly have a traditional view toward marriage and human sexuality. Many of them have told us that passage of the One Church Plan would lead them to leave the denomination, as well.
The Renewal and Reform Coalition hopes that General Conference will prayerfully consider the provisions and principles of the Modified Traditional Plan and find in them a viable way toward a united and fruitful future for United Methodism.
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 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.
By Thomas Lambrecht –
By Thomas Lambrecht –
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.)
