GC 2020: The Indy Plan’s Fundamental Flaw and Pride Goeth Before a Fall

Frank Holbrook 3 GC 2020

UPDATE SEPTEMBER 26, 2019.  THIS ARTICLE WAS ORIGINALLY POSTED AUGUST 16, 2019 BEFORE THE INDIANAPOLIS PLAN  PETITION WAS SUBMITTED.  A FUTURE ARTICLE WILL ANALYZE THE PETITION THAT WAS SUBMITTED.

I had a significant bump in readership yesterday. When I saw the spike, my fallen human nature kicked in with a spike in the sin of pride. Like most things involving pride, my spike in pridefulness was far larger than the traffic spike. If there is a moral weaved through today’s post it might be a reminder that “Pride Goeth Before a Fall.”

One of the things I’ve learned in the past three weeks is that you get some basic information about people who visit your site. I don’t subscribe to an analytics package so the information I get is pretty basic. As I mentioned in a “Thank You” post a few days ago, I can learn information such as which posts are being viewed more and the originating country (not states) for views. I can also see which sites originate viewership. For example, I get basic information such as X views originated when people clicked a link on FaceBook or Google.

As I tried to determine the source for yesterday’s increased interest in my site I noticed quite a spike in traffic originating at peopleneedjesus.net. I also noticed that a lot of people were looking at my first post concerning the Indianapolis Plan. I clicked over to the site’s compendium page and discovered it had been updated to include new links. I generally scan all the links on the page and try to read the linked posts since they contain viewpoints from a number of different perspectives. As I read down the links I saw a new link to yesterday’s post and then I noticed a link immediately below it.

The link immediately below mine was a link to a post by Rev. Sky McCracken, a highly respected member of our clergy in the Memphis Annual Conference. I’ve worked with Rev. McCracken and have always thought of him as a person having great insight and wisdom.  I continue to hold that opinion.  His post was titled “Indianapolis Plan Has a Fundamental Flaw”.  When I clicked the link to read Sky’s thoughts I was taken back to my site and the first article I wrote concerning the Indianapolis Plan. Mystery solved. The journey of pride to the final destination fall was complete. Rev. McCracken and his opinions voiced at UM Insight had driven my bump in traffic. His article may be found here.

Once I got over myself, I realized that a lot of readers, myself included, are interested in articles that point out flaws, especially if they are fundamental. Looking for flaws and defects and checking one’s thinking is part of the process I keep calling Virtual Holy Conferencing. In the case of Rev. McCracken’s article, who wouldn’t want to read the views of a highly respected member of the clergy that offered opinions based on his years of experience working as a pastor and District Superintendent? But I think the allure to finding a fundamental flaw reflects part of our basic human nature; we generally tend to look for reasons that a thing won’t work. But the truth is, if a thing won’t work it’s good to know that before the thing is implemented. Thus, when someone clams to have identified a fundamental flaw, that should be considered.

When any piece critiques a plan, whether it is Bard Jones or the Indy Plan, one of the things a thoughtful piece does is try to consider the law of unintended consequences. No one ever avoids the trap of unintended consequences entirely. People we view as having a lot of wisdom are usually pretty good at looking into the future and seeing unintended consequences at work.

Like Rev. McCracken, I agree that the Indy Plan and the Bard Jones plan both suffer a fundamental flaw. However I think I see a different flaw than others have identified or the flaw Rev. MCracken identifies. On the other hand, I my be recognizing the same flaw identified by Rev. McCracken but viewing it from a different perspective.

Here I am eight paragraphs into my post and finally getting around to the main point – discussing the fundamental flaw, as I see it. In the basic journalism classes I attended I think they called that “burying the lede.” That phrase meant you took the most important point of the story and buried it in the body of the story. The most important point should always be in the lede, the first paragraph of a story.  Realizing that I have violated a fundamental principle of writing, I am going to make sure I highlight the most important point.

THE BIG POINT! – IMPORTANT! – READ THIS!

The fundamental flaw in the plans to date is that each provides a means that divided Annual Conferences, local churches and members into new expressions, but is unworkable because of the law of unintended consequences. Both the Bard Jones Plan and the Indy Plan solve the “big” problem of approximately thirty three thousand clergy and twelve and a half million members who disagree by breaking it into two expressions that each contain about half the clergy and half the members. Essentially, both plans take a numerically bigger denomination and “solve” the problem by making it two numerically smaller expressions with the exact same underlying divisions.

Illustrating the Unintended Consequence of the Fundamental Flaw

A hypothetical example should help illustrate my point. Assume that there is a conference where the GC elections resulted in a hypothetical GC delegation of 10 “Centrist/Progressive” clergy delegates and 10 “Traditional” lay delegates. The logical conclusion is that there seems to be a split between the clergy and the laity. Although this illustration is not directed at any Annual Conference, the e-mails, posts and news releases emanating from all sides of the current debate suggests that all sides agree that this fact pattern exists.

Now imagine the vote that will take place during 2020 (Indy Plan) or 2022 (Bard Jones Plan) in this same Annual Conference when it has to choose whether to join an expression labeled Centrist/Progressive or an expression labeled Traditional. I think it’s logical to assume that under existing circumstances there is a high probability that the Annual Conference will vote to join the Centrist/Progressive expression. How do I reach that conclusion? Because the BOD mandates that 50% of the delegates voting will be clergy and 50% laity. I sense that there is a higher relative percentage of clergy who self-identify as Centrist/Progressive than Traditional. I also sense that the percentage of clergy so identifying is higher than the percentage of laity self-identifying as Traditional. Let’s assume in our hypothetical that 80% of the clergy delegates self-identify as Centrist/Progressive and 75% of the Laity self-identify as traditional. Given the mathematical law of weighted averages, in such a situation the Annual Conference will join the Centrist/Progressive new expression. Are you with me so far?

Now we move to the next step in forming the new expressions under either plan. Presumably, the Annual Conference will follow the same process and elect delegates to the first General Conference of the new expression. Any educated guesses on how that vote might turn out? My guess is that the vote will probably end up being 10 clergy delegates who self-identify as Centrist/Progressive and 10 lay delegates who self-identify as Traditional.

Now the Annual Conference follows the next step in either plan.  It sends its evenly divided delegation off to the first General Confernce of the new expression to solve the problems that the same divided delegation could not solve in the larger context of the United Methodist Church General Conference. That, in my opinion, is the fundamental flaw. The Bard Jones Plan and the Indy Plan both have the unintended consequence of perpetuating the same fight that currently exists. Both plans attempt to solve the immediate presenting issue concerning human sexuality but do nothing to effectively address the long term issue regarding the deeper divide within the church.

Anecdotal evidence of this fundamental flaw appears in many ways. If you’ve ever heard a pastor tell someone he can’t discuss an issue because if he took a position on the issue thirty, forty or fifty percent of his church would leave then you’ve heard a manifestation of the deeper issue. Our tendency has been to paper over the differences by encouraging silence; that’s one approach to “unity”.  Just don’t talk about an issue that may divide us and then we’re “unified.”  However, refusing to discuss an issue and engage in Christian Conferencing about an issue doesn’t make the issue go away and doesn’t make a group unified.

Additional anecdotal evidence exists. I recently became aware of a situation where a pastor, who self-identifies in what we are labeling Centrist/Progressive asked if he would be able to have an appointment if his Annual Conference voted to be Traditional. That’s another acknowledgement of the practical consequences or trying to solve the deeper issue that divides us.

In my opinion, and its only a personal opinion, a numerical disparity exists between the theological perspective of the laity and the clergy.  That  is one of the huge underlying issues in the debate. I get the sense that across the denomination our clergy are generally more theologically liberal than the laity. I even heard one person quip after the 2019 AC elections that the church may divide but the division may be between the clergy and the laity; maybe there is a kernel of truth in that statement. There is no way to confirm my intuition since the United Methodist Church does not take a census and ask its members and clergy to register their theological beliefs. Such a census shouldn’t be done. It’s not only a bad idea, as Rev. McCracken sagely points out, people probably don’t fit into the neat theological boxes we might ask them to check. The possible mismatch between the theological leanings of clergy and congregations is an issue that I believe confronts the Episcopacy in making appointments.

It’s easy to identify a problem, harder to solve it.  So what’s my proposed solution? As I have written on many occasions, I believe the new expressions should be formed prior to an Annual Conference, Local church or individual member being asked to join it. The new expression should be free to select the composition of its convening conference so that “Traditional” delegates are not compelled to work on the “Centrist/Progressive” polity and doctrine and vice versa. Grant those who have a similar vision of a new expression the opportunity to come together so they may refine and birth the new expression. This is why I suggest the 1784 Christmas Conference as a model.  Unless this process is followed, in my opinion, any plan making the selection process occur before the formation process is merely creating the same conditions that will absolutely insure that the same struggle continues into the future.  Under the Bard Jones Plan and the Indy Plan the problem isn’t solved, it’s just delegated to two smaller units to continue the struggle.

To those who might say, “my local church doesn’t care they just want to do their local ministry”, I understand this view. I think to a lot, if not most, members of local churches, what happens at GC has no significance. But across the denomination the church’s actions belie the truth of that assertion. When we issue multiple statements regretting the hurt that the actions of a General Conference have caused, isn’t that a recognition that people are paying attention to the actions taken at the denominational level? One can’t say doctrine and polity doesn’t matter to the local church while simultaneously issuing statements expressing sincere regret at the hurt that may have been caused at the local church level.

As we prepare for General Conference 2020 I decided that part of my preparation would be to read Wesley’s sermons. I often think of myself as a good Wesleyan, but how good of a Wesleyan can I be if I am ignorant of Father John’s words? I was prompted to begin my reading by a sermon I heard recently where a portion of Wesley’s words were quoted:

One great reason why the rich, in general, have so little sympathy for the poor, is, because they so seldom visit them. Hence it is, that, according to the common observation, one part of the world does not know what the other suffers. Many of them do not know, because they do not care to know: they keep out of the way of knowing it; and then plead their voluntary ignorances an excuse for their hardness of heart. “Indeed, Sir,” said person of large substance, “I am a very compassionate man. But, to tell you the truth, I do not know anybody in the world that is in want.” How did this come to pass[?] Why, he took good care to keep out of their way; and if he fell upon any of them unawares “he passed over on the other side.”

Although the title of the sermon is “On Visiting the Sick”, it contains insights concerning the role of the old, young and women. Although the language is slightly archaic, Wesley’s insights are as fresh today as when they were first written. We are cautioned not to read the Bible as literalists or in ignorance. The danger of doing so can be seen when a parent says “Spare the rod and spoil the child” as justification for some over-the-top disciplinary action of a child. The first problem is that this “literal” verse doesn’t appear to exist. So its not a question of literally interpreting the Bible. The second problem is should this supposed verse be applied literally?  If one is not a literalist or has deeper knowledge of scripture, one sees that the larger truth in the folk statement is that the young (child) should be given direction. Only a person who is being a “literalist” where the literal text does not appear, rejects the underlying truth of the scriptural guidance being offered. No one can theologically or rationally argue that it is not incumbent upon a parent to provide guidance for a child. A parent doesn’t always get it right, but that doesn’t mean the parent shouldn’t try to raise the child to be not only a “child of God”, but also a mature “adult of God.” The folk phrasing of “Spare the rod spoil the child” needs to be tempered with knowledge of  “Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.” Proverbs 22:6 (KJV).

I believe that, like the Bible, Wesley’s sermon also transcends its express words and shouldn’t be read merely literally. His statement is not merely about the sick.  It points to a greater truth.  His words:  “Many of them do not know, because they do not care to know: they keep out of the way of knowing it; and then plead their voluntary ignorances an excuse for their hardness of heart” can be read as a real cautionary word for everyone engaged in deciding the future course of the United Methodist Church. No one can stick their head in the sand and plead ignorance as “an excuse for hardness of heart.”

At their best, the work of Bishops Bard and Jones and the Indianapolis working group are the fruits of people who refuse to engage in “hardness of heart because they do not care to know.” They are engaged in admirable efforts to know one another and to arrive at a sound, Christ-like solution to a confounding problem. By observing what I believe to be the fundamental flaw in both plans I respectfully hope to encourage additional consideration of possible solutions to the problem.

Finally, I realize that I am posting a great deal about possible separation into new expressions. These posts may be irrelevant at GC 2020 because that body may choose to continue working within the existing unitary framework. If that collective decision is made, then everyone’s task is to continue to seek solutions within that framework and my thoughts on the issue of possible separation are irrelevant.  In addition, as I write, I again emphasize that I am not speaking for my Annual Conference, any United Methodist Church organization I may be affiliated with or anyone else. I also will continue to avoid expressing any view on the issue of human sexuality; there are plenty of voices advancing arguments concerning those issues. However, I will continue to offer my thoughts concerning the processes that may be considered at GC 2020. I believe any delegate would do a great disservice to the United Methodist Church if they fail to engage in thoughtful dialogue about such process issues both before and during GC 2020. No one should plead ignorance as an excuse to engage in hardness of heart.  Pride goeth before a fall.

Come Holy Spirit.