GC 2020 – Holy Negotiation, Linkage, Leverage and Intensity – a Mediator’s View

Frank Holbrook 3 GC 2020

In the post entitled GC 2020 – UM Forward’s NEW Plan – first in a series of analyses I offered the opinion that the Plain Grace Plan (“PGP”) might work for UM Forward. This post follows up on that observation. My original intention for this post was to explain how the PGP might achieve the NEW Plan’s goals. Essentially, in the intended original post I was going to draw on my experience with mediation to discuss how the PGP might be an acceptable compromise for UM Forward to consider. However, as I began working on that topic, I drafted a one paragraph aside that has ended up being the thrust of this post. Consequently, this post is a stand alone piece that deals with a slightly different topic: a mediation perspective on General Conference 2020 and judging the plans. The other post will appear soon.

Many opinions have been offered about the underlying reasons for the rift that became so visible at recent General Conferences. A lot has been written about those opinions. Stepping back and viewing the NEW Plan and the PGP plan from a mediator’s perspective made me realize that there is a point I don’t recall reading anything about: negotiating tactics. General Conference constantly aspires to Holy Conferencing. Although the objective of General Conference is to engage in Holy Conferencing, on the whole the United Methodist Church appears to have drifted into a practice of substituting negotiation for conferencing. I’m pretty sure that “Holy Negotiation”, if such a thing exists, is not the same as Holy Conferencing.

As I read the UM Forward NEW Plan I identified several goals. As a mediator I tried to discern whether the things I identified were truly goals or merely incidental consequences. This is a typical thought process in negotiations and a thought process I unconsciously drifted into as I considered the NEW Plan. When trying to think if the PGP plan will meet a plan’s goals it’s important to understand the goals. If I am incorrectly thinking a consequence is a goal then I’m probably wrong about the PGP working for a group such as UM Forward. Let me explain the difference between consequences and goals by using the dissolution of the United Methodist Church discussed in the NEW Plan as an example.

Dissolving the United Methodist Church in the NEW Plan – Goal or Consequence?

Under the NEW Plan the United Methodist Church will disappear in 2024. Two statements from the plan support that conclusion: (1) “Rather than continuing the conflict, which does significant harm to the vitality of the denomination and local congregations, The United Methodist Church lays itself aside” and (2) “A Plan of Separation shall be presented to a special General Conference, occurring before 2024, that dissolves The United Methodist Church and attends to all practical, legal, and financial considerations related to this dissolution.” Based on those statements the question its clear that the NEW Plan intends to dissolve the denomination. The critical question is an underlying unstated question: “Is the dissolution of the United Methodist Church a sought after goal or is it merely a consequence of UM Forward’s vision for four new denominations?” If UM Forward is adamant that the United Methodist Church must no longer exist, then the PGP will be unacceptable; the PGP does not dissolve the United Methodist Church. On the other hand, if the dissolution is merely a consequence of creating four new denominations then the PGP might work for UM Forward. In my opinion, under the PGP the surviving United Methodist Church will probably be either what the NEW Plan labels “Traditionalist Methodist Church” or “Moderate Methodist Church”.

That leads to a second question: “Is the creation of four denominations a goal or a consequence of separation?” Is UM Forward saying that there must be four but only four new denominations? Or is it willing to allow for the possibility that other denominations (expressions) may form? If the number four is non-negotiable for UM Forward then the PGP fails to meet the goal; under the PGP any number of new expressions may form. The PGP does not set an arbitrary number and say “there must be this many expressions, no more no less.” The PGP concept is that people will create expressions that are right for their vision of ministry. If UM Forward’s goal is for there to be four but only four new denominations, then the PGP will be unacceptable; if there are four denominations as a consequence of the NEW Plan then the PGP alternative may be acceptable. As I read the NEW Plan, its emphasis on “self-determination” would lead me to believe that four denominations is a consequence, not a goal.

That is the end of the example of thinking about goals and consequences. But thinking like a mediator lead me to the aside that ultimately resulted in the post you’re reading now. What follows is the aside, as I originally drafted it:

“At this point I need to take a short detour to discuss a broader point. This detour isn’t intended to single out UM Forward. It is an observation that applies to many of the plans. Like some other plans, the NEW Plan creates linkage between the human sexuality debate and a plan for separation. If one thinks clearly about linkage, one can easily see that it makes any plan of separation conditional. Essentially linkage is a way of saying “If you agree to something I want (in this case a moratorium) then we will agree to working towards something else we want (a plan of separation)”. Linkage creates a situation where its more likely that a delegate who favors separation but opposes a moratorium won’t vote in favor of the plan. This appears to be a common thread running through most of the plans for separation and is a fairly typical negotiating tactic known as “leverage”. I believe that insistence on linkage and leverage is the most likely reason separation may not occur at General Conference 2020. It’s why the PGP doesn’t employ linkage; under the PGP human sexuality issues will be decided by each new expression at their respective organizing conference.”

Leverage and linkage are common practices in the world. We use those concepts daily. A parent might say to a child “If you clean your plate then you can have dessert”. That’s negotiating using leverage and linkage. If the parent means what they say (which sometimes is not the case), only if the child conforms to the preferred behavior does the child get the dessert.

Thinking about the use of linkage and leverage at General Conference lead the epiphany which resulted in this post. The epiphany was the question: Is the use of linkage and leveraging a part of Holy Conferencing?

That question sent me down the path of trying to think about uses of leverage and linkage in the Bible. I thought about the conditional nature of he Mosaic covenant and wondered if that was an example of leverage and linkage. I thought of Exodus 19:5: “Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession”. At first blush it seems to be an example, but God wasn’t negotiating when he delivered the law to Moses so I concluded that wasn’t a good example.

Ultimately, I couldn’t come up with what I believed to be a good example of Holy Negotiation. There may be examples of Holy Negotiation but my Biblical scholarship is too inadequate for me to think of any; maybe someone reading this post can make the case for it. Personally, I don’t think it occurs. I’m aware that we sometimes struggle with turning prayer into a negotiation, but I think most leaders of our denomination will agree that it’s not a theologically sound concept. Peter and John before the Sanhedrin in the Book of Acts (Acts 4-5) and Martin Luther before the Diet of Worms seem to be examples where linkage and leverage as part of “Holy Negotiation” was rejected.

And fundamentally that is one of the roots of our current problem. No one can engage in Holy Negotiation. The reason it won’t work is that you are asking the people on the other side of the “negotiation” to concede one of their foundational beliefs. I am unaware of any negotiation where one side agrees to compromise a foundational belief; in fact, by definition it can’t occur. If a belief can be negotiated away as a part of a compromise, it truly isn’t a foundational belief.

How does this explain our deadlock? That leads me back to the above statement: “I believe that insistence on linkage and leverage is the most likely reason separation may not occur at GC 2020”.

Many of the plans that were filed contain linkage and leverage. The most common example of the concept is contained in both the NEW Plan and UMCNext’s plan. Both plans link separation to a moratorium on enforcing human sexuality provisions in the discipline. This indicates several things.

First, linking the two issues demonstrates that denominational unity is not a foundational belief of those who propose the plan. If one thinks clearly about the issue, such a plan is saying “Unity is important, but it can be compromised if we can agree on the moratorium issue”. If unity can be compromised it isn’t foundational.

Second it illustrates a belief that the proponents of the plans also believe that those on the other side of the issue think like this: “Enforcement of human sexuality provisions of the discipline are important but not foundational, if you compromise on the issue we can separate”. The proponents implicitly believe that opponents don’t hold their view of human sexuality as a foundational belief.

Linkage makes solving the issues vastly more complex. If separation and discipline enforcement were treated as discrete issues then each decision is binary, yes or no. Do we need to separate, yes or no? Should we continue to enforce the discipline until we separate, yes or no? Persons who respond to those questions fall into one of two categories, the yeas or nays. But when the question becomes “Should we agree to a moratorium so we can separate?” The possible responses become more difficult. A person might be (1) opposed to separation and opposed to a moratorium, (2) opposed to separation and in favor of a moratorium, (3) in favor of separation and opposed to a moratorium and (4) in favor of separation and in favor of a moratorium. By linking the two questions, the decision became exceedingly more difficult. If separate votes are held on separation and a moratorium then no one is required to compromise a foundational belief on either vote.

If one thinks clearly about this, one can understand why considering upcoming revisions to the Social Principles may become contentious. Presumably a number of principles will be submitted as a group. Anyone who has ever heard anyone say “I generally support the Social Principles but I have a problem with X” is seeing the problem of linkage playing out before their eyes. If a delegate concludes that any one principle violates a foundational belief, then the delegate will be more inclined to vote against the principles.

Foundational beliefs are also the ones held most intensely. Failure to recognize the issue of intensity is one reason there is so much consternation about what may happen at local churches. Although I don’t have experience as pastor, it seem to me as a lay person that a church may divide 52 to 48 on an issue but if the issue is not foundational it won’t be particularly divisive. Intensity also explains why some people can never “let it go” or “give it a rest”. They are can’t let it go because it is foundational and they are intense about the issue. If one believes that God can lay something on someone’s heart, they shouldn’t be surprised that the thing laid on the heart has such an intensity that it burns like a white hot coal.

I suspect that intensity also helps explain the wide variance of opinions about where the denominational membership stands on issues such as human sexuality. People who respond to surveys are the ones who are motivated by the issue; many of the respondents view the issue as foundational. People who follow politics see this played out in political polling, accurate polls are the ones that take into account intensity not merely raw numbers of respondents.

Ultimately, foundational issues are ones that are intense and, in common parlance, are non-negotiable. When you here a phrase like “that’s a non-starter” or “that’s not going to come off the table” you are dealing with a foundational issue for one side or the other.

Linkage and intensity also helps explain the uncertainty about the future of many local churches. If the question is asked “Do you support the Book of Discipline’s view on human sexuality?” the vote may split 52/48. This may lead to the conclusion that church is hopelessly split. But if the question is asked “Do you feel strongly enough about the issue of human sexuality that you would favor our local church splitting over the issue?” I suspect the percentage split won’t be 52/48. Based on anecdotal evidence, I suspect that in most local churches the second question will be answered “No” by approximately 80/20.

Intensity is one of the reasons that explains why churches have members leaving; those persons leaving view view the issue of human sexuality as foundational and are upset that there has been no resolution. Others who are leaving are just tired of the fight, they are not intense over the human sexuality issue; they view peace within the denomination and the local church as a foundational value that trumps either side of the human sexuality debate.

Intensity also is part of the source about my trepidation concerning General Conference 2020. Reading reports about the votes in annual conferences, there seems to have been a lot of block voting based on the single issue of human sexuality. I think it is reasonable to infer that by and large our annual conferences are sending delegates to General Conference who have intense beliefs about human sexuality and who view the issue as foundational. The intensity is there on both sides of the issue. In such a situation, compromise is impossible. In my opinion, the miscalculation regarding the One Church Plan in 2019 was the failure to consider intensity and the fact that many delegates considered human sexuality a foundational value that couldn’t be compromised.

I have no illusions about the probability that linkage and leverage will have a prominent role at General Conference 2020. I fully expect it to happen and it’s something with which delegates will have to deal. But the fact that it probably will happen makes it all the more important to recognize when it is happening.

I previously wrote this post explaining how I would look at petitions from a lawyer’s perspective. Today’s post discusses one aspect of looking at plans from a mediator’s perspective. By writing about linkage and leverage it’s not my intent to impugn anyone’s motives. As I consider the issues facing General Conference 2020 its clear to me that delegates will be struggling to discern and implement the foundational values that God is calling them to honor. But at the same time, I believe God is calling General Conference 2020 to use our collective wisdom and discernment to find the path that is pleasing to God. Clearly thinking about the process is not cynicism or disrespect; it is a way of honoring the One who is the truth, the way and the life.

Awake, O Sleeper and Rise from the Dead.

P.S. I have been posting a series of flow charts that help explain the operation of the Plain Grace Plan. The two charts currently available may be found here and here. Others will be coming soon. Please take the time to view the charts, I think you’ll find them helpful.