GC 2020: 1784 – The Christmas Gift that Keeps on Giving

GC 2020: 1784 – The Christmas Gift that Keeps on Giving

Frank Holbrook 5 Uncategorized

 

 

In an earlier post I suggested that Bard Jones’ proposed sequencing of creating new expressions was less than optimal. This post expands on that earlier point.

 

At some future date under the Bard Jones plan and any other plan allowing new expressions, Annual Conferences and/or local churches will be offered an opportunity to join these new expressions. The process for joining a new expression is one step in creating new expressions; however, the joining process is a subject for another post on another day.  Today’s post focuses on the steps that precede an Annual Conference or local church being offered the opportunity to join a new expression.  Annual Conferences and local churches shouldn’t be asked to join a new expression based merely on a label.  Moreover, in my opinion, Annual Conferences and local churches shouldn’t be asked to join a new expression based on the single issue of human sexuality.  In truth, human sexuality is a presenting issue for differences that run much deeper.

 

In any potential plan creating new expressions there are two separate but interrelated questions that precede the approval vote. (1) How does the new expression create and define itself? (2) What are the minimum requirements for a new expression to be allowed to present itself as an option for affiliation? The Bard Jones plan seems to imply that both questions should be answered by General Conference action. This post suggests that each question should be decided by two distinct decision makers.

 

Question 1 – Who should decide how a new expression creates and defines itself?

In considering the creation of new expressions I use the term “Convening Conference” to denote a formal meeting where a new expression is created. The Bard Jones plan clearly contemplates that each new expression will have a Convening Conference. However, Bard Jones assumes that the General Conference should put a number of processes in place to govern the Convening Conference.

 

Under the Bard Jones plan each Convening Conference would perform its initial work under the some general guidelines imposed by the General Conference.  At page 3 of the Bard Jones plan the guidelines are summarized:

 

• Each church will have its own General Conference with complete freedom to change its originating Book of Discipline after 2020.

• The current constitution of the UMC will be adaptable by a majority vote of the first General Conference of each church.

• Each Church will select its own name. It will begin with the current Book of Discipline as modified by the following:

       • The Progressive Methodist Church Discipline will include the Simple Plan as presented in 2019, and would be further modified so that full inclusion of LGBTQ persons in marriage and eligibility for candidacy, commissioning, ordination and appointment was clearly affirmed.

       • The Open Methodist Church Discipline will include the Simple Plan as presented in 2019. The Progressive and Open Methodist Churches may decide to be a single Methodist Church.

       • The Traditional Methodist Church Discipline will include the Traditional Plan as presented in 2019. It will keep the current social principles and standards for ordination.

• In 2022 each church will hold a General Conference which will re-write its Book of Discipline by majority vote of the delegates. That conference will have the right to choose whether or not to have a constitution. Each church will have the right to amend its doctrinal statements, adopt a new constitution, set its own standards for church membership and ordination and all other matters of polity and doctrine.

 

Thus, the Bard Jones plan anticipates that the General Conference will circumscribe the process for each new Convening Conference.  It appears preferable to avoid imposing these limits as an initial matter.  Looking back in the denominational history there is a clear precedent for such an approach.  If one considers the Christmas Conference of 1784, one sees a model for a contemporary Convening Conference.  A short overview of the Christmas Conference is found here at the United Methodist Church website.

 

Looking back in history its indisputable that the Christmas Conference of 1784  self-selected those who were invited to participate in the Confernece.  After it convened the conference was free to do its work of creating what came to be called the Methodist Episcopal Church. The work of the Christmas Conference is summarized in the previously cited article on the United Methodist Church website as follows: “No minutes of the Christmas Conference survive, but based on the journals of those present and the Discipline they produced, historians can piece together much of what happened. Twelve lay preachers were elected and ordained as elders (clergy). The Sunday Service John Wesley sent with Coke was approved for use in the new church—a forerunner of todayʼs Book of Worship. The conference also talked about forming Cokesbury College, and made a host of other decisions necessary for the formation of the new denomination.”

 

In other words, the Christmas Conference had generous space to establish itself as a new expression of Methodism.  Although it had general guidance from Wesley and a history upon which to draw, it had great freedom in establishing its own denominational boundaries.  A principled argument can be made that if the church in 2020 is truly focused on allowing new expressions to be created it should follow the model of 1784.

 

General Conference 2020 should take a limited role in regulating the process for a Covening Conference.

 

It is reasonably anticipated that any Convening Conferences will address and decide, to its own satisfaction, polity, doctrinal, superintendency, itinerancy, missional, institutional and geographical questions.  A Convening Conference could arise as the result of work by existing groups who join together in a coalition to create a general framework prior to the actual meeting of invited delegates.  But most significantly, a Convening Confernce would be creating its new expression as the members find themselves moved.  Certainly, each new expression will be familiar with existing doctrine and polity and should be trusted to faithfully present their vision for Methodism going forward.

 

 

Question 2: What are the minimum requirements for a new expression to be allowed to present itself as an option for affiliation.

 

While an argument may be made that a new expression should have great latitude in creating itself, deciding which new expressions should be allowed to present themselves as an option for affiliation is a process rightly decided by the General Conference. The General Conference has not only a right, but I would suggest it has a steward’s duty, to insure that new expressions that seek the right to have Annual Conferences or Local Churches join them are true heirs of the United Methodist Church and meet some minimum assurance of viability. Of course, any new expression would be free to discard any one of more of the minimums, but the consequence of such action would be to disqualify that new expression from offering itself as a new home for Annual Conferences or Local Churches.

 

Common sense suggests there are at least five minimum requirements that should be mandated by the General Conference.  Additional minimums may be suggested but the more the minimum expands the greater General Conference controls the process of creating new expressions.  These suggested requirements would have to be adopted or provided for by each new expression’s Convening Conference.  If the minimums are met, then a new expression could present itself for consideration.  This approach avoids the problem of General Conference dictating the number of new expressions.

 

The five minimums that occur to me are listed below.  They are not listed in any particular order and certainly no attempt is made to prioritize them.  Moreover, each of the minimums is described from a 50,000 foot viewpoint.  Each listed minimum is much more of an idea than a fleshed out proposal.

 

First, the new expression should adopt a common core of beliefs consistent with the core beliefs of the United Methodist Church.   As mentioned in the first post in this series, An Alternate Approach to Unity – An Effort to Avoid Ruling From the Grave, a common core of beliefs has been identified in the Report of the Commission on the Way Forward.  Common sense and doctrinal continuity suggest that these core beliefs be minimum standards that should be adopted by any new expression.

 

Second, new expression would have to meet some minimum critical mass to offer themselves as a viable option.  The easy part of this requirement is defining what is critical mass; in all likelihood it would be a bright line test of a number of churches joining the new expression.  However, it’s currently impractical under the BOD to have Annual Conferences or local churches leave the United Methodist Church for the purpose of creating a new expression and thereby create the critical mass. The difficulty here is a chicken and egg problem.  Which will come first, the critical mass or the approval process?  I believe a way out of this unresolvable problem; the General Conference should consider creating a status called Provisional Affiliation.  This status would only exist for a given period of time.  Provisional affiliation would allow an Annual Conference or Local Church to indicate that it is committed to joining a new expression if the new expression reaches the defined critical mass.  If the new expression fails to reach the critical mass then the provisional affiliation becomes null and void and the entity remains in the United Methodist Church.  This is certainly an outside the box concept, but to deal with the difficult issues facing GC 2020 some outside the box thinking will be required.

 

Third, the new expression must have been created by, and subject to, a democratic process.  This means the Convening Conference will be ruled by a majority, but it also means that going forward the new expression’s future annual and general conferences will also be governed democratically.  What this does NOT mean is that any new expression is locked into the 50% clergy 50% Laity sufferage model that is the current United Methodist Church model.  For example, at the risk of being burned at the stake I’ll pose the following question:  Is there any reason that clergy should not be limited to voice, but not vote, on matters of pension and insurance?  I’m reasonably sure a principled debate could be made on both sides of that issue; but saying its something we do as part of the democratic process is not an answer.   New expressions should also be allowed to place limits on Clergy and Lay delegates.  Should conference or local church employees be allowed to serve as lay delegates?  Should spouses of clergy be allowed to serve as lay delegates? Should retired clergy be allowed to vote or can a new expression be free to avoid the issue of reserve delegates?   New expressions should be free to tailor their respective democratic processes to a conform to the model they choose.

 

Fourth, a new expression must have have a plan for its relationship with the existing ABCs (Agencies, Boards and Commissions) of the United Methodist Church.  By allowing the new expressions to develop their own relationships with the ABCs it can be argued that the ABCs will become more responsive to those expressions that provide support.  It will also give the ABCs more latitude to chart their course for the future.  Practically speaking, some ABCs may have no affiliation with a new expression and be supported by one or more other expression.  This allows the ABCs to work out a plan with each new expression.  This is in keeping with the idea that each new expression will be allowed to create its own missional and institutional priorities.

 

Fifth, each new expression should have executed a Full Communion Agreement with one another and the United Methodist Church.  GC 2020 should create a list of full communion provisions, including bright line mandatory language provisions, that each new expression would be required to adopt and keep in effect for a given period of time, perhaps 10 years.  Requiring Full Communion Agreements, with certain minimum mandatory provisions, would insure a degree of unity among the new expressions.  Since there is likely to be ongoing discussions and issues among the new expressions, I’d suggest that one of the provisions in each full communion agreement be an arbitration provision to settle any disputes regarding property issues.  Of course, this might be better considered a sixth minimum if the Full Communion Agreement is not an appropriate instrument to determine how to resolve future disputes.

 

Two Important Consequences

There are two important consequences of using the forging process.

 

Since Annual Conferences and Local Churches aren’t required to join a new expression, the United Methodist Church will continue to exist past 2024.  By not mandating a forced exit from the United Methodist Church, this approach should pass constitutional muster.  It will also allow time for certain issues such as Episcopacy and Clergy affiliation to be sorted out.  Just as churches shouldn’t be forced into a shotgun wedding with new expressions, neither should the Episcopacy nor Clergy.

 

In addition, since the UMC is not disappearing, the timeline for creating and joining new expressions can be expanded.  For example, if one assumes that the new expressions form in 2022, then the approval process could start in 2023,  But would it be possible, or preferable, to allow the process to continue through 2028?  By 2024, the United Methodist Church and the General Conference would have a better sense of how the denomination is being impacted and could take further actions.  However, the downside to such an approach is that it encourages all the current factions to stay in the United Methodist Church and continue a fight to see who “wins control” of the denomination.

 

Conclusion

 

I hope this attempt to engage in the thought experiment invited by Bishops Bard and Jones helps advance the dialogue. I’m sure there are a lot of holes that can and will be poked in this post.  But after 38 years of practicing law my skin got pretty thick.  Please feel free to poke away, in love.

RELATED BLOG

5 comments found

GC 2020: The Plain Grace Plan – PlaneGrace August 12th, 2019

[…] need for new expressions to have room to form organically. This issue is discussed more here and here. The Plain Grace Plan would create a framework for that process to operate using the 1784 […]

GC 2020 – More on Provisional Affiliation – PlaneGrace August 6th, 2019

[…] Yesterday’s post proposed creating a new status for Annual Conferences and Local Churches called “Provisional Affiliation”. The relevant portion of the post read as follows “the General Conference should consider creating a status called Provisional Affiliation. This status would only exist for a given period of time. Provisional affiliation would allow an Annual Conference or Local Church to indicate that it is committed to joining a new expression if the new expression reaches the defined critical mass. If the new expression fails to reach the critical mass then the provisional affiliation becomes null and void and the entity remains in the United Methodist Church. This is certainly an outside the box concept, but to deal with the difficult issues facing GC 2020 some outside the box thinking will be required.” This post considers the Provisional Affiliation concept in more detail. […]

comments user

betsypc August 5th, 2019

I appreciate your thoughts. However, if the current UMC is to remain in existence, what would be its set of core beliefs? Here is why I ask that: I know on paper there are common core beliefs, but after spending years cruising the internet, listening to every voice from within the UMC I could find, what I discovered is that there are no common core beliefs that are currently driving the UMC. The Way Forward identified one of the core beliefs as being the Apostle’s and Nicene’s Creed. However, a petition was submitted to one of the two most recent regular GC’s that proposed the Nicene Creed should become an official part of the doctrine of The UMC; it was defeated in committee because there was no agreement as to whether or not the UMC is a creedal church. This was news to me since I had spent my life reciting the Apostle’s Creed in every Methodist/United Methodist Church I had ever attended. The whole problem with the UMC is it no longer has a specific identity beyond its polity. I have had to embrace the hard reality that to say I am United Methodist means absolutely nothing when it comes to identifying who I am as a Christian–it only describes the way a specific denomination functions.

Here is how Ret. Bishop Timothy Whitaker describes the problem with UMC in the forward to the book “Mainline or Methodist” by Scott Kisker:

“It is obvious to any observer that our church has changed considerably since its beginning. Change is to be expected since every living organism changes or dies. In a healthy organism, change over time does not destroy its identity. The problem with the United Methodist Church is that it seems to have lost its identity through all of its changes over the years. In other words, our church seems to have undergone mutations that disturbed the identity it possessed at its birth.”

    comments user

    Frank Holbrook August 5th, 2019

    Extremely insightful. Thanks for engaging in the dialogue.

    As I appreciate it, there is no corporate entity called “The United Methodist Church”. Instead, it is a connection of corporate entities bound together by a commitment to follow the Book of Discipline. In recent years that commitment has weakened causing the connection to weaken.

    If new expressions are allowed to formulate as they see fit, I suspect one or more may be credal expressions. If this is attractive to some ACs and local churches they are likely to move to a credal new expression. Of course some non-credal churches will also move to new non-credal expressions. It’s one of the reasons I don’t think GC should dictate the initial structure of the new expressions.

    During the transition period, if the BOD remains unchanged this presumably would accelerate attrition in the UMC. It’s hard to predict what a smaller denomination would look like after new expressions form but hopefully it will be more united on basic polity and doctrine. If it’s more United, the connection should become stronger due to fewer principled disputes.

    Thanks again for your thoughtful comment and analysis. It’s what I consider a good example of virtual Holy Conferencing.

    comments user

    Frank Holbrook August 7th, 2019

    Thanks for inspiring an extended reply. You can find it here: GC 2020 – More on the Common Core