GC 2020 – The Next Generation UMC Plan – An Overview and Comments on Petition 1

Frank Holbrook 1 GC 2020

This is the first in a series of posts that will offer thoughts about the United Methodist Church Next Generation Plan.  This post focuses on an overview of the plan and an analysis of Petition 1, the petition calling for a special Session of the General Conference.

The Overview

Somewhere between the initial press release on August 16, 2019 (found here) and the time when the petitions were filed, the title of the UMCNext plan changed to the Next Generation UMC Plan.  Since I have previously written about the UMCNext Plan, for both consistency and brevity I’ll use the term “UMCNEXT Plan” to identify the plan.

The UMCNEXT Plan includes 23 separate petitions.  As I read the petitions, logically they fall into four broad categories.

Category Number #1 – A non-disciplinary petition calling for reinvention of the UMC by a 32 member “Commission on a 21st Century Church” followed by a Special Session of the General Conference in 2023 to act on the work of the commission. [Petition 1]

Category #2 – Ten disciplinary petitions intended to change the United Methodist Church’s current stance on human sexuality, ordination as it relates to issues involving human sexuality, clergy misconduct as it relates to issues involving human sexuality and the definition of marriage. [Petitions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 13]

Category #3 Nine disciplinary petitions relate to complaints, just resolution, judicial proceedings and proposed moratoriums. [Petitions 9, 10, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23].  Although this group of petitions share human sexuality as the common connective tissue, they also raise implications over the balance between complaints, discipline, accountability and transparency.

Category #4 Three disciplinary petitions address separation and new expressions. [Petitions 14, 15 and 16]

The petitions were filed by the Rev. Junius Dotson, Elder, Great Plains Annual Conference, Nashville, TN, USA,  Co-convener of UMC Next.

Petition 1 – The Call for a Special Session of the General Conference

Petition 1, the non-disciplinary petition calling for a Special Session of the General Conference,  has four major parts.  First, an outline of the perceived reasons that the UMC needs to be reinvented for the 21st Century. Second, a list of subjects that the proposed Commission on the Church in the 21st Century would be required to consider and make recommendations concerning.  Third, the process for forming the commission.  Finally, a call for a Special Session of General Conference in 2023.

Section 1 – Perceived Reasons for Reinventing the Church for the 21st Century

First, the petition broadly identifies the perceived causes for needed change.  The causes generally are set forth as a mixture of a perceived problem and an aspirational goal to solve the problem.  The causes, and aspirational goals, are as follows:

1. Recognition that the polity adopted approximately 50 years ago when the United Methodist Church was formed has become cumbersome and outdated.This is clearly something that is perceived as a problem by many.

2. Recognition that the role of the United Methodist Church in respect to the rest of the world has changed. “Mission and missional partnerships in locations beyond the US were viewed [at the time of formation] as an extension of the US church’s witness.” Now Central Conferences need to be able “to practice self-determination and leave behind perceptions that they are extensions of the church in the US.” Again, this is something that does not appear, on its face, to be controversial.

3. “We seek a structure that provides meaningful opportunities for mutual ministry and support while also providing maximum latitude for adaptations that take into account language, culture, and legal frameworks in different parts of the world.”On its face, this seems like a good aspirational statement; however, the problem with the aspirational generality is how is this implemented?  This statement is really one aspect of the broader question: “What will unity look like in the United Methodist Church?”  What, if any, are the bounds of “maximum latitude”?

4. “We seek a plan that continues to articulate the shared doctrine and connectional polity that is the core of our Wesleyan heritage articulated in the Discipline.”Does this mean that the aspirational goal is to maintain the present polity in the discipline?  On its face the statement seems to imply that, but I don’t think that is what is meant.  I believe that what is being sought is a plan that continues to articulate the core of the shared Wesleyan doctrine and connectional polity that is articulated in our discipline.  It seems to me the unspoken question this raises is: “what is the shared core of doctrine and connectional polity in our Wesleyan heritage”?  In many ways, this issue is at the heart of our current disputes.  The petition does not appear to attempt to answer that question; therefore, presumably it would be delegated to the proposed commission for a decision.

5. “Annual conferences and episcopal areas require greater latitude to be nimble and responsive.”On its face this seems to be an unremarkable statement.  However, I think it ignores an important aspect: accountability.  Our current discipline observes: “Support without accountability promotes moral weakness; accountability without support is a form of cruelty.” BOD ¶102, p.55.  Annual conferences and episcopal areas already demonstrate great latitude and nimbleness, often as a result of a perceived lack of accountability.  The aspirational statement seems to ignore striking the balance between accountability and nimbleness.  This outlook is also demonstrated in the group of petitions dealing with complaints, just resolution and judicial proceedings; this issue will be explored in a future post.

6. “The General Conference is the body that helps us clarify the “why” and the “what” questions about theology and mission in our connection. The General Conference fosters unity of purpose and support of core values for the denomination.  A simpler structure will clarify the distinctive role of the General Conference and disperse decision making about discrete matters more appropriately and effectively.”  This statement seems to minimize the current role of the General Conference and portend an effort to redefine the powers of the General Conference.  Paragraph 16 clearly states “The General Conference shall have full legislative power over all matters distinctively connectional, and in the exercise of this power shall have authority as follows: [followed by 16 enumerated subject matters].”  I believe a fair reading of the enumerated powers demonstrates that its role goes well beyond “help[ing] us clarify the ‘why’ and ‘what’ questions about theology and mission”.  This implies that the commission will not only be asked to address streamlining the operation of the General Conference, it will be asked to redefine its powers.

7. “The local church is the primary arena for ministry and making disciples of Jesus Christ. The UMC requires relationships and rules that free local churches to gain deep understandings of their communities and adapt their ministries in ways that are relevant and resonant with the people served—while at the same time remaining connected globally to our worldwide mission. The UMC requires a simpler, less costly, and less cumbersome set of structures and practices to facilitate faster decisions making made as close as possible to each ministry setting and that enable experimentation and innovation.”  As I read ¶¶201-204 of the BOD concerning the mission of the local church, I’m not sure what changes could be made to create “a simpler, less costly, and less cumbersome set of structures and practices to facilitate faster decisions making made as close as possible to each ministry setting and that enable experimentation and innovation.”  The petition does not identify such presumably necessary changes.  Apparently the real issue being raised involves accountability and limits placed on local churches by the action of the General Conference through the Book of Discipline.  Once again, this raises the interplay between issues of unity, the boundaries of connection and accountability.

8. “In the past we often formed agencies to address needs and circumstances unique to the US mission field. We apparently need different ways to address global requirements in the future.Direct interactive global relationships and partnerships are easier to facilitate now. The UMC mission requires greater ability to promptly mobilize the witness of our global denomination during important moments and in each location.”  The language of the petition is limited to agencies.  It is unclear if the intent also was to address Boards and General Commissions.  Presumably, this suggests that the proposed commission should address a new structure that abolishes or restructures the existing agencies.

Section 2 – The Mandatory Subject Matter of the Commission on a 21st Century Church

The next section of Petition 1 uses the mandatory word “shall” in listing the seven subjects to be addressed by the Commission on a 21st Century Church.  Consequently, the commission is required to address those subject matters.  Nonetheless, one of the subjects appears to be conditional: “Make provisions so that if the UMC creates a regional US structure as proposed by the Connectional Table, the Commission shall recommend the organizing documents for such a body”.  I’m not sure why a commission that is appointed to recommend a new structure and possible new constitution can only consider a regional US structure if (a) it was proposed by the Connectional Table and (b) adopted by the UMC (presumably the General Conference).  I am probably missing the politics of the proposal, but this conditional grant of authority seems rather curious on its face to me.

In addition, the proposed new constitution would be required to retain the Article of Religion; however, all other documents that may form what I have termed the “common core” would be optional: “Propose a new constitution that retains the Articles of Religion of The United Methodist Church and draws upon the best principles of our historic Wesleyan theological tradition, Doctrinal Standards, Our Theological Task, and our history of mission and ministry”.  I may be cynical, to me but this smacks of the truism “winners write the history books”.  The commission is given unfettered latitude to reconfigure most of the doctrinal sources for the church.

A third point strikes me. The petition fails to include a provision that would normally be expected: “make other proposals that would assist in bringing the church into the 21st Century”.  Omission of such a catch all grant of authority limits the work that the commission may do.  In other words, the commission has to address the seven subjects but presumably it cannot go outside the listed areas to consider changes for the benefit of the 21st century church.

Section 3 – The Organization of the Commission

The third part of the petition deals with the creation of the commission.

In my first reading of the petition I assumed that the commission would be comprised of 32 members appointed by the Council of Bishops.  Actually, the commission is limited to 32 voting members.

The actual size of the commission may be much larger.  The second paragraph dealing with membership on the commission states “Members should have special knowledge in areas necessary to complete the tasks, including theology, ecclesiology, missiology, organizational management, legal expertise, etc. The Commission is encouraged to seek engagement from a wide variety of experts and from a broad array of members. The members shall be named by the Council of Bishops.”  Presumably, these would be non-voting members.  There appears to be no limit to the number of non-voting members; that would be solely within the discretion of the Council of Bishops.  Rather than allowing the commission to consult with non-member experts it appears the UMCNEXT plan would envision a large commission.  Such a large body may prove unwieldy and potentially quite expensive.

Section 4 – The 2023 Special Session of General Conference

The fourth area of Petition 1 calls for a Special Session of General Conference to be held in 2023.

The purpose of the special session is to:  (1) Deliberate and act on the recommendations of the Commission on the 21st Century Church; (2) Consider and begin the process of making constitutional amendments or adopting a substitute constitution proposed by the Commission on the 21st Century Church, including steps that assure a clear delineation of the governing prerogatives between regional and global to regional entities. Constitutional amendments would need to be subsequently approved as enumerated in Division Five of the constitution; and (3) expand and codify the full participation and leadership of LGBTQ persons in the ministries and mission of the Church.

There appears to me to be a glaring inconsistency between the powers of the commission and the purpose of the special session.  Nowhere is the commission charged with the responsibility to “expand and codify the full participation and leadership of LGBTQ persons in the ministries and mission of the Church”.  As I noted, there is no catch all power granted to the commission.  Since the commission would appear to be limited to its enumerated powers, one would presume that the commission lacks authority to deal with the full participation and leadership of LGBTQ persons in the ministries and mission of the Church.  On the other hand, ifs a subsidiary question to the larger powers granted, why is it necessary to be specific subject included in the call for the 2023 special session?  If the subject is not dealt with by the commission will it be a subject matter that will allow multiple petitions to be filed and sorted out during the 2023 special session?  Because it is a subject matter of the called special session that would appear to be proper.  One would assume that if the question of “full participation and leadership of LGBTQ persons in the ministries and mission of the Church” is a critical question for the 21st Century church it would properly be addressed by the commission.  One needs only to consider the protracted agonizing over the scope of the 2019 special session to realize the importance of the wording of the call.

In addition, the purpose of the 2023 special session is defined to “expand and codify the full participation and leadership of LGBTQ persons in the ministries and mission of the Church”.  It is not defined as “to consider expanding and codifying the full participation and leadership of LGBTQ persons in the ministries and mission of the Church”.  Thus, Petition 1 foreordains a result within the call for a special session; the 2023 special session must expand full participation and leadership.  By how much?  Who knows?  Its axiomatic that one General Conference cannot bind a future general conference; under that standard would this part of the call be unconstitutional?  Particularly since other parts of the petition contemplate that the composition of the delegates will be different: “Pursuant to ¶35 and ¶36 of the Discipline, general conference clergy delegates who cease to be members in full connection of a UM annual conference, and lay delegates who cease to be professing members of a UM local church, in either case through actions of the local church or annual conference, or both, in which they had been members disaffiliating or otherwise ending its connectional relationship with The United Methodist Church, shall cease to be delegates.”  All of this may be merely a technicality, if UMCNEXT prevails with its plan I presume it will undoubtedly have the votes to rewrite the Constitution and BOD in any manner it so chooses.  But it may be laying the groundwork for a constitutional challenge to the petition.

CONCLUSION

The UMCNEXT group may have it absolutely right, the United Methodist Church may need to be reinvented and adopt a new constitution.  If separation occurs that is likely.  It’s hard to argue with the necessity for some action.

However, in the context of the entire UMCNEXT Plan, I find the combination of asking local churches to stay with a self-labeled “Centrist” group while simultaneously planning major changes to what currently passes as “Centrist” doctrine and polity troubling.  Petition 1 defines its rationale as “The United Methodist Church must adapt to create a vital, global polity”.  The petition recognizes a need for “reinventing a functional polity”.  It appears to me that in Petition 1 the UMCNEXT is setting the denomination on the path to inventing a new definition of what it means to be a “centrist”.  I’ve written previously about why labels matter.  Labels matter because they can be deceiving, they are often a substitute for deeper reflection and people pack their presuppositions into a label.  If labels have to be employed, maybe a more descriptive label for this plan would be the “Reinventionist Plan”; however, I seriously doubt UMCNEXT will want to use that label.  Nonetheless, if separation occurs reinvention will happen.  All plans for separation are at their heart about reinvention.  It may be best to be candid about that fact.