GC 2020 – The Indianapolis Plan vs. the Bard Jones Plan – a First Take

GC 2020 – The Indianapolis Plan vs. the Bard Jones Plan – a First Take

Frank Holbrook 1 GC 2020

 

UPDATE SEPTEMBER 26, 2019.  THIS ARTICLE WAS ORIGINALLY POSTED AUGUST 15, 2019 BEFORE THE INDIANAPOLIS PLAN  PETITION WAS SUBMITTED.  A FUTURE ARTICLE WILL ANALYZE THE PETITION THAT WAS SUBMITTED.

 

 

After yesterday’s post was published a summary of the Indianapolis Plan (“Indy Plan”) was posted on Peopleneedjesus.net. The plan summary contains a preamble and 20 bullet points. It provides additional details that did not appear in the United Methodist News Service article. This post is my first look at some of the ways the Indy Plan differs from the Bard Jones Plan (“BJP”).

 

I’ll begin by noting that both plans advance the dialogue concerning potential separation. In fairness, it should also be emphasized that the Indianapolis Group released its work to encourage discussion and critique. It’s clearly a draft plan. Releasing a draft truly encourages a good process because it allows the framers of the plan to get feedback and make necessary additions and adjustments. This post discusses some of the differences between the Indy Plan and BJP.

 

DIFFERENCE ONE – THE DEGREE OF SEPARATION

 

When comparing the BJP and the Indy Plan one must begin at the fundamental difference between the two plans. Both plans agree that there must be separation, their fundamental difference is how much distance to put between the freshly minted new expressions.

 

The BJP begins with the vision of an ongoing United Methodist Church that has no members in 2025 but will continue “to exist as an umbrella organization to facilitate [the] new form of unity” envisioned by the plan. BJP unity includes full communion between the new expressions.

 

On the other hand, the Indy Plan says nothing about ongoing communion, full or otherwise and expressly recognizes that the new expressions will be separate. The summary’s preamble goes on to state the following: “We will send one another to our respectively defined missions and multiply as each expression reaches its mission field. In doing so, we will love one another even in the midst of our sharp disagreements. We will release one another to joyful obedience to Christ’s call on our lives.” Sending one another on each other’s respective ways and releasing one another is clear language showing an intent for greater distance.

 

Using the Indy Group’s analogy, the BJP sends the kids to their rooms and the Indy Plan sends them out into the world. Living in the same neighborhood can mean a lot of different things. I’ve lived in neighborhoods where next door neighbors barely know one another; however, I’ve lived in neighborhoods where next door neighbors were constantly engaged in one another’s lives. I suspect that the Indy Plan envisions a neighbor relationship where neighbors are less engaged in each other’s lives.

 

If one assumes that separation is the future path of the United Methodist Church, the two plans offer different visions concerning the degree of separation.

 

DIFFERENCE TWO – THE TREATMENT OF ABCs

 

If one assumes, as the BJP does, that the United Methodist Church will have continued existence as an umbrella organization then the disposition of the Agencies, Boards and Commissions (“ABCs”) is a different issue than the issues presented by the Indy Plan. The BJP provides more detail concerning the future fate of most of the existing administrative infrastructure of the United Methodist Church.  The Indy Plan has less detail but approaches the issue largely from the standpoint that ABCs will be transferred intact to one of the new expressions.  Division of assets and liabilities and distribution of ABCs will be a big topic if separation advances.

 

DIFFERENCE THREE – THE DEFAULT OPTION

Under the BJP each Annual Conference would be required to choose a new expression. On the other hand, the Indy Plan sorts out Central Conferences and Annual Conferences by using a default option. These two approaches are significantly different. In fact, the approach is not merely a matter of degree, it can be argued they are different in kind.

 

I suspect that under the Indy Plan most U.S. members will view the Centrist/Progressive “new expression” as the old United Methodist Church with a name change. In fact, this is expressly recognized in point 2 of the summary: “The United Methodist Church would not be dissolved but would have its legal continuation through the Centrist/Progressive United Methodist Church.” In the Central Conferences, most members will view the Traditional “new expression” as the old United Methodist Church with a name change. I have already seen comments on social media where commenters, particularly U.S. clergy, opine that their local church will not want to make any change or even take a vote on changing affiliation. Inaction by a local church will be equated in most minds as “staying put” in the United Methodist Church. The Indy Plan does not require any local church to confront Normalcy Bias.

 

I would analogize the Indy Plan to a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy where a corporate entity enters bankruptcy and reorganizes into two separate corporations going forward. The reorganizing entity would probably file a plan that asks the court to approve a reorganization where the parent company continues to operate but spins off some of its assets into an International Group with some limited Domestic operations.

 

Reorganization using the default option has the benefit of being the least disruptive. Nonetheless, saying something is the “least disruptive” is just another way of saying that it involves the smallest degree of change. This is part of the balancing act facing GC 2020 if petitions concerning separation are enacted. The default option may be the only workable solution given the constraints of the Book of Discipline. It is an alternative to the BJP’s approach of requiring Annual Conferences to leave the United Methodist Church.  But a default option could involve different means of implementation.  It is a topic ripe for further discussion.

 

DIFFERENCE FOUR – THE “ARBITRATION BOARD”

 

The Indy Plan presents the idea of an Arbitration Board at point 19: “A process and principles for dividing general church assets would be adopted by General Conference, to be implemented by an arbitration board.” This approach addresses the problem of Waiting on Tables.

 

The Indy Plan’s use of the phrase “to be implemented by an arbitration board” is slightly confusing. I believe there are really two different processes intended by point 19.

 

The first process is one of identifying general church assets and attempting to arrive at a fair and equitable asset division through negotiation. That is an administrative process. In my mind, the process of dividing general church assets should be handled by an impartial administrative group that is empowered to reach a full resolution. Essentially, this group will be involved in a negotiation/mediation process. In such a process there will undoubtedly be some “horse trading” that occurs but that is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, looking at the Indy Plan’s allocation of ABCs it’s apparent that, whether it was described as such, the plan already includes the result of some horse trading concerning division of ABCs.

 

However, an arbitration board would not normally be the one to “implement” the process. The administrative group implements the process The arbitration board should be the impartial group that decides issues that the administrative group cannot resolve among themselves. Although the Arbitration Board ultimately serves as a final decision maker on potential contentious points it serves an even more important function; it reminds the administrative group that if they cannot resolve an issue by negotiation, consensus building or horse trading then the issue will be out of their hands. The ultimate power of mediation in the legal context is to remind the parties that if they can’t reach a voluntary decision then someone else will decide their fate. That is also a fundamental reason for an arbitration board.

 

CONCLUSION

 

In this first pass at the Indy Plan I’ve tried to point out some key differences between it and the BJP. Although the discussion may have leaked over occasionally into the area of critique I’ve tried to refrain from that in this post. The Indy Plan joins the BJP as the basis for virtual Holy Conferencing as we move towards the deadline for submitting petitions.

RELATED BLOG

1 Comment found

GC 2020: UMCNext’s Proposal – PlaneGrace’s Analysis – PlaneGrace August 19th, 2019

[…] my earlier post GC 2020 – The Indianapolis Plan vs. the Bard Jones Plan – a First Take  I made the following […]