GC 2020 – The Indianapolis Plan

Frank Holbrook 3 GC 2020

The United Methodist News Service has released a story that summarizes the “Indianapolis Plan.” The story may be found here.

One of my former partners used to caution younger lawyers against jumping to conclusions by using the phrase “Don’t intuit the facts.” He’s a lot smarter and more concise in his language than I am. But I thought of his advice as I read the news story. There are a lot of of good facts in the story but no link to a summary or a detailed version of the plan. UPDATE:  A COPY OF THE DRAFT PLAN IS HERE. I suspect that the lack of detail is merely an inherent quality of any news piece that summarizes a larger story. In making this observation I am not faulting the news service or the Indianapolis working group. In fact, both are to be commended. I am, however, trying to avoid the temptation of intuiting what is in the plan based on one news story. Therefore, I’ll reserve comments on the specifics of the plan until they are revealed and until the group is given an opportunity to explain the plan without the filter and limitations inherent in a news release.

Now that I have tempered my enthusiasm, I compliment both the news story and the plan’s working group for advancing the virtual Holy Conferencing currently underway. The plan is obviously thoughtful and the result of a group working diligently to discern the future path for the denomination. The Indianapolis plan gives witness to the fact that persons with good hearts but differing convictions can come together and work with the guidance of the Spirit to find common ground. This work gives witness to the fact that although we may divide ourselves by the labels we affix to one another, we can still do the Holy work required of the church universal.

The first thing that strikes me is that the group has offered us a fresh analogy in thinking about our relationship. Maybe I’ve been living under a rock but I haven’t encountered that analogy before. I really appreciated the distinction between the Bard Jones plan and the Indianapolis plan made by Rev. Dr. Kent Millard and Rev. Keith Boyette. Rev. Dr. Millard is quoted as saying “Weʼve discovered The United Methodist Church canʼt live in the same house together peaceably, but we can live next door to one another.” Rev. Boyette uses similar language: “What the Indianapolis Plan achieves is essentially saying, ʻOK, weʼre going to be in different houses in the same neighborhood, and the neighborhood is the larger Wesleyan family.” On the other hand, the Bard Jones plan was described as living in the same house but in different rooms. I think these analogies are useful in thinking about possible visions for new expressions thereby advancing the dialogue. The analogy implicitly suggests that maybe this can be an instance where “Good fences make good neighbors.”

The news story lists eight bullet points for the plan, but by using the modifier “includes” to describe the points it’s clear that the plan is not limited to these eight points. The points listed in the news story are:

(1) Central conferences could align with either of the denominations or become autonomous affiliated denominations. Those that don’t decide would automatically be part of the Traditionalist United Methodist Church.

(2) U.S. annual conferences would decide by majority vote which denomination to join. Those who don’t take a vote would by default be part of the Centrist/Progressive United Methodist Church.

(3) Local churches disagreeing with their annual conference’s decision could decide by majority vote to align elsewhere, retaining their property, assets and liabilities.

(4) Clergy would decide on a denomination to join, but by default would go with their annual conference’s decision. Bishops could also choose a denomination.

(5) Each denomination would develop a new General Conference, as well as its own Book of Discipline, structures, polity and finances.

(6) Wespath, the United Methodist Committee on Relief, United Methodist Women and the United Methodist Publishing House would be independent 501(c)3 organizations positioned to serve the two or three denominations. All other agencies would be part of the Centrist/Progressive United Methodist Church.

(7) The 2020 General Conference would provide funding for central conference ministries through the 2021-2024 quadrennium, and the separated denominations would share the costs.

(8) A process would be devised for dividing current general church assets, including creation of an arbitration board.

I’ve previously posted quite a bit concerning the subjects covered by points 1 through 5. I’m looking forward to seeing more detail concerning those points. I’m also eager to see more detail concerning any and all remaining points. Among the keys for success of any plan are (a) the details and (b) a plan’s internal consistency. One sees a hint of those keys in the news story but more detail is really needed to make informed judgments about the plan. So in the meantime I’ll reserve further comment. Basic fairness suggests that one should allow the plan proponents to present the Indianapolis Plan fully before engaging in critique or debate. Attempting to discuss the merits or limitations of the plan based a one news story requires a great deal of “intuiting the facts.”

I have a friend who keeps saying “I sense the wind of renewal beginning to stir in the United Methodist Church.” For the record, my friend attends a Baptist Church so, to use a colloquialism from the South, “he doesn’t have a dog in the fight.” But I think he’s right. The Indianapolis Plan makes that stirring a little stronger. Work like that done by the Indianapolis group may be turning the stirring into a breeze. Continued work by the Indianapolis group and others can turn the breeze into a rushing wind of renewal throughout the church.

Come Holy Spirit.