GC 2020 – Addressing Objections to the Plain Grace Plan’s Use of Full Communion Agreements

Frank Holbrook 3 GC 2020

I wrote an earlier post, found here, identifying and responding to initial questions and comments to the Plain Grace Plan (“PGP”). Someone recently offered the opinion that the single biggest objection to the PGP is that the expressions that are formed remain in full communion. This post responds to those objections.

The Reasons for the Objection

It appears there is no single motivation for the objection to being in Full Communion with a new expression; instead, there are multiple objections that mirror the reasons that separation is currently being considered. In no particular order the following constitute some of the reasons offered for the objection:

Why do I want to be in a church that is in full communion with another expression (i.e. denomination) that doesn’t share my doctrinal viewpoint?

Why do I want to be in a church that is in full communion with another expression when we don’t share an ecclesiological outlook?

Why do I want to be in a church that is in full communion with another expression when I don’t trust them?

Why do I want to be in a church that is in full communion with another expression where we have a long history of antagonism, or outright hostility, to one another?

Why do I want to be in a church that is in full communion with another expression when its going to cause a lot of ongoing disputes?

Instead of responding to each objection, point-by-point, this post will explain why Full Communion is important to the PGP.

The Most Important and Misunderstood Reason for Full Communion

I think most people objecting to Full Communion are doing so as a reflexive reaction; they believe being in Full Communion is an implicit endorsement of the other new expression. However, Full Communion under the PGP is not an endorsement, it is a relationship with clear boundaries established by the written Full Communion Agreement. It is also an agreement that expires on December 31, 2028 unless it is renewed by mutual agreement. By its terms, it is a temporary transitional arrangement. Why is this so important?

As long as the people who will comprise the new expressions are members of the United Methodist Church the Book of Discipline will govern the separation process. However, once the separation process begins and a new expression or denomination begins to operate, under the PGP the General Conference has no ability guide the path of the New Expression. Given the current lack of trust and complaints about lack of accountability and enforceability, how does any plan insure that the agreed upon separation process is followed after separation occurs? There must be an overriding agreement that governs the process and insures it is carried out as agreed upon; that is the main purpose of the Full Communion Agreement.

Three additional thoughts are offered to explain the rationale for employing a Full Communion Agreement. First, the PGP had to work within the existing polity established by the Book of Discipline. Except for the limited provisions adopted at GC 2019, I don’t believe there are other provisions that are defined to address amicable separation. The Book of Discipline was drafted with one of its purposes being to keep churches, annual conferences, jurisdictions and Central conferences together. In the secular world, few people include an exit path as they enter into a relationship. For example, pre-nuptial agreements are the exception, not the rule. The existing Book of Discipline provision regarding Full Communion was one of the few tools that allowed agreements to be made at a denominational level. The PGP believes that denominational level agreements will be critical in the separation process.

Second, if one wants a secular analogy (which always has the potential for confusion when thinking about ecclesiology), the Full Communion Agreement is like a treaty. It includes agreements that create rights and duties for each signatory. The Full Communion Agreement not only imposes obligations on the Full Communion Expression, it also creates rights for the Full Communion Expression. The Full Communion Agreement attempts to insure that the agreement is not unilaterally changed by a future GC or a Full Communion Expression’s GC. But are these rights and duties important if one side chooses to ignore them? What happens if one side unilaterally tries to change the agreement? How does one insure accountability? That leads to the third point.

The PGP Full Communion Agreement includes a Dispute Resolution Agreement which culminates in a neutral arbitration proceeding. For those that cite lack of trust and accountability as reasons for separation one would think that an impartial dispute resolution process would be a “must have” in the separation process. Full Communion accomplishes that purpose.

Using an Imperfect Analogy to Further Explain the Plain Grace Plan

For those who still may not have overcome their aversion to a Full Communion label, some additional explanation may be in order. Given the biblical passages addressing divorce, no one really wants to use divorce as an example when considering plans of separation. However, in my opinion, using divorce provides a useful framework for most people to think about the problem. No matter what your theological position is on divorce, it’s highly probable that you’ve had to deal with the consequences of divorce during your lifetime. Divorce provides several analogies that help explain why the PGP includes a full communion component.

I’d suggest performing a simple thought experiment. Assume there is a couple with minor children who are going through a divorce. The situation is rancorous. Both members of the couple have grown to have such a deep dislike for the other that they say “I don’t want anything to do with the other person”. This is analogous to the situation where people object to being in full communion with a new denomination; they view the denominational relationship as so broken that continuing any relationship is poisonous. Understandably, they desire a quick, clean separation. Realistically, how clean can the separation be?

Divorce Analogy #1 – What is our relationship going to look like during the divorce and after the divorce?

In the thought experiment, is a clean separation immediately possible? If a couple has minor children they will have some type of relationship unless one or the other abandons the children. It appears that because of the minor children total immediate separation is impossible. Only in the limited circumstance where one parent is willing to completely abandon the children involved and the other parent makes no effort to involve the first parent, will there be no ongoing relationship. If one parent walks away, and the second parent pursues the first parent, there is a relationship. It may be involuntary and involve legal proceedings or some other aspect of involuntary encounter. Ultimately, a clean, quick separation is not a unilateral decision.

For reasonable persons, a separation also requires some thought about what happens both during and after the divorce. Those issues about the process during the divorce involve issues such as “How do we maintain the house? Who is going to pay the utilities? Are we going to keep the property insured? Can we attend the same church? Can we stay in the same Sunday School class? What are we going to say publicly about the divorce and about each other?” People involved in a divorce either agree to some mutually agreeable way to handle these types of questions or they become additional issues creating conflict and requiring non consensual resolution, usually legal proceedings.

Anyone who has ever been around divorces has probably seen some that were amicable and others that brought out the worst in the people involved. The Full Communion Agreement is an process for trying to make the separation amicable by addressing key items of dispute.

For example, what is the right of ordained clergy to join a New Expression? Surely, that’s a question that reasonable people might conclude should be decided in a plan of separation. Under the PGP this is expressly handled in the Full Communion Agreement and elsewhere. Paragraph 431A expressly states: “By recognizing the validity of each other’s offices of ministry, neither the United Methodist Church nor the Full Communion Expression shall be required to automatically accept transfer of any clergy or Bishop; the United Methodist Church and Full Communion Expression shall maintain the absolute right to determine qualifications for transfer of clergy and Bishops.” Some may view it ironic that the Full Communion Agreement limits certain rights but the fact is that a limit on the rights of clergy in the United Methodist Church is a grant of rights to the Full Communion Expression. If one reads the PGP, one can see that Full Communion might mean something entirely opposite of what they think if they have a knee jerk reaction that Full Communion is a bad thing.

Divorce Analogy #2 – What do we do for child support?

Continuing the thought experiment, in the divorce situation there has to be some provision made for the minor children. Most persons reading this post will be familiar with the concept of child support. Child support can be agreed to by the parents or it can be imposed by legal means. But it’s ultimately an important part of any divorce situation involving minor children.

The Full Communion Agreement proposed by the PGP includes something akin to child support; it uses the concept of Missional Resource Allocation found at ¶431F. The rationale for missional resource allocation is that each new expression took part in determining missional priorities of the current United Methodist Church and it is the responsible course of action to allow those missional priorities a period of time to grow into their new role.

A small missional group would receive eight years of “child support” during which time it can grow into its newly imagined role: a) that portion of the World Service Fund used to support Central Conferences, said proportion being calculated by General Council on Finance and Administration (with limits) b) that portion of the Episcopal Fund representing salaries, housing and office expenses to support Bishops in Central Conferences, said portion being calculated by General Council on Finance and Administration; c) the Black College Fund; d) the Africa University Fund; e) General Commission on Archives and History; and, f) the General Administrative Fund. ¶431F 2.

Some Boards and Commissions are given four years to reimagine their role: a) the General Board of Church and Society; b) the General Board of Discipleship; c) the General Board of Global Ministries; d) the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry; e) the General Commission on Communication; f) the United Methodist Women; g) the General Commission on Religion and Race; h) the General Commission on the Status and Role of Women; and, i) the General Commission on United Methodist Men. For those that say “that’s too long”, the “four year” commitment is actually closer to two years. New expressions won’t form and have annual conferences and local churches wont begin joining until October of 2022. Thus, the “four year” commitment in cases involving new expressions would essentially be a two year commitment. ¶431F 3. The four years of support dovetails with the requirement that these Boards and Commissions present proposed operational plans to the 2024 General Conference. ¶725

Child support isn’t legally imposed forever; it has limits. In the PGP the limit is either four or eight years. But this doesn’t prevent a new expression from supporting the “children” after the Full Communion Agreement expires in 2028; it’s intended to (a) give the recipients time to transition to their new reality and (b) give the new expressions time to determine whether and how they may relate to the identified missional support recipients after 2028.  Importantly, any such ongoing relationship will be consensual, it will be impossible for the United Methodist Church to dictate the terms of future involvement by General Conference actions.

Divorce Analogy #3 – The Property Settlement Agreement

A third aspect of the Full Communion Agreement is the property settlement. By committing to the Gracious Affiliation Agreement required to be in Full Communion, the United Methodist Church and Full Communion Expression are committed to the property settlement process set forth in ¶¶2554 and 2555. This requirement is expressly set out in ¶431C 2. governing the terms of the Gracious Affiliation Agreement. The agreement gives both sides enforceable rights and responsibilities.

Similarly, the Full Communion Expression and United Methodist Church commit to using the Dispute Resolution Process established by ¶431C 3 to resolve any property dispute.

CONCLUSION

I understand the hesitancy people may have about committing to being in Full Communion with another expression. However, I believe most of the hesitancy is a reaction to the term “Full Communion” and not to the substance of what Full Communion entails under the PGP. Maybe it would have been an easier “sell” if instead of calling for a Full Communion Agreement the PGP had called for a “Divorce, Child Support and Property Settlement Agreement with Mandatory Dispute Resolution Provisions.” It probably would have quieted some of the criticism of the PGP, but I didn’t find that option available when I looked through the current Book of Discipline.

Labels matter. But although labels matter, for persons who think through a process, substance ultimately trumps labels. It’s like a game of rock, paper scissors with labels being paper and reason being the scissors. Of course, in any game there are those who will bring the rocks; I’m hoping the rock bearers stay out of the game and scissors win.

As always, I’m open to suggestions for a better solution.