GC 2020: The Plain Grace Plan

Frank Holbrook 5 GC 2020

My last two posts considered the Gracious Exit provision adopted by GC 2019. On August 10 the General Conference Commission issued a press release concluding that the adopted provision is void. The press release also noted a suggested plan of action:

In accordance with the policy of the General Conference that votes are to remain confidential, the investigation did not seek to find out whether the votes cast were in favor of substituting the minority report or against it. Having found sufficient evidence that there were invalid votes that potentially affected the result of the vote, the Commission determined that the vote to substitute the minority report is void. They also made a decision to ask the Council of Bishops to consider referring the matter to the Judicial Council to examine the potential impact on the disaffiliation vote.

Thus, the current status of Gracious Exit is in limbo, awaiting further action by the Council of Bishops and probably the Judicial Council. But just because the current version of Gracious Exit is in doubt, it does not follow that the concepts of Gracious Exit and Gracious New Affiliation should not be considered further. They are clearly issues that will be addressed at GC 2020. The current situation on the ground has changed but the underlying issues remain.

As noted in several of my previous posts regarding Gracious New Affiliation found here and here, the underlying premise of Gracious New Affiliation is a recognition that creating space for a new communion is something fundamentally different than churches exiting the denomination, i.e. disaffiliation. As a first principle, if GC 2020 concludes that some form of separation is needed and works to create that separation by new expressions, then the processes by which churches move to those new expressions should be Gracious New Affiliation. Churches leaving the denomination altogether would be governed by a distinct and different exit provision that, based on the work of the Commission on General Conference, apparently will have to be addressed at GC 2020.

I believe a Gracious New Affiliation provision could be implemented and would include some minimums. First, allowing new expressions an opportunity to form with a minimum of oversight. Second, binding guidelines enacted by GC that would set the minimum for a new expression to be an approved new expression. Third, the use of Provisional Affiliation. Fourth, the adoption by each Annual Conference of clear and binding guidelines concerning the “cost” of new affiliation in advance of churches being asked to make a decision concerning new affiliation. How would this play out in real time? For ease of reference, I’ll call these steps and any of my future suggestions the “Plain Grace Plan.”

READER WARNING: To date I have tried to discuss issues with a minimum of advocacy. As I present the Plain Grace Plan it necessarily involves some degree of advocacy. Nonetheless, the advocacy will be for a process, not for adoption of a theological or social position.

How would the Plain Grace Plan Work?

The Plain Grace Plan would require GC 2020 to adopt a window for implementation. During this window, GC 2020 would adopt provisions for the Book of Discipline that would only be effective during the window. In other words, anything adopted to implement the Plain Grace Plan would sunset. In my opinion, a fair and orderly process will take until 2028 to implement so the BOD provisions would be in effect from the close of GC 2020 until the close of GC 2028. The plan recognizes that the necessary sorting out is a temporary process and cannot be the long term norm for the United Methodist Church or any denomination. However, the window also recognizes that the process will take a reasonable amount of time.

Prior posts have discussed the need for new expressions to have room to form organically. This issue is discussed more here and here. The Plain Grace Plan would create a framework for that process to operate using the 1784 model.

The Plain Grace Plan would establish the minimum Common Core that a new expression would have to meet to become an approved New Expression.  For more discussion of Common Core see here.   These would be bright line tests with minimal, if any room, for interpretation. The prime example would be that any new expression to be approved would have to adopt The Articles of Religion and Confession of Faith. The GC would be free to add other appropriate items as part of the Common Core. I have previously pointed to the Report on the Commission on the Way Forward as a source for listing our core but, I again emphasize that I am using its common core as a starting point, not the endpoint, for GC 2020 consideration.

In addition to the common core, GC 2020 would also set any other additional minimums under the Plain Grace Plan. I provided a suggested four other minimums in this post regarding the 1784 Christmas Conference (1) minimum critical mass, (2) creation by democratic process, (3) plan for relationship with ABCs (Agencies, Boards and Commissions) and (4) a Full Communion Agreement with an arbitration provision. I won’t rehash the details here.

The Plain Grace Plan would delegate the approval process for new expressions to a group it creates for that sole purpose. Once a new expression seeks approval, the actual approval period would be short, perhaps 60 days. Since the approving body is merely looking for compliance with bright line minimums, its work will be administrative rather than a deliberative; thus, a short time line makes sense. Once a new expression is approved it has several implications for the new expression. First, it may then begin accepting “Provisional Affiliation Agreements” from local churches and clergy. Provisional affiliation was discussed in the Post 1784 – The Christmas Gift that Keeps on Giving and the post More on Provisional Affiliation found here. Soliciting Provisional Affiliation would be permitted as soon as approval was received from the authorizing group.

In addition, approval by the authorizing group would empower a new expression to submit an affiliation resolution to any annual or central conference asking that conference to join the new expression. The affiliation resolution would be a short form pre-approved by General Conference. Every presenting new expression would be required to use the same short form. Adopting an approved form would help insure that no new expression is prevented from presenting itself to any annual or central conference via parliamentary maneuvering and thereby help insure a level playing field for each new expression. GC 2020 would set 2022 as the first year that new expression affiliation resolutions could be submitted to an annual or central conference.

GC 2020 would suspend the operation of the trust clause for local churches taking advantage of the Gracious New Affiliation during the period the Plain Grace Plan is in effect, i.e 2020-2028.

GC 2020 would require Annual and Central Conferences to establish, by 2021, a bright line new affiliation financial formula for local churches taking advantage of the Gracious New Affiliation during the period the Plain Grace Plan is in effect. This would allow local churches considering a new expression to understand the financial cost of joining the new affiliation and eliminate the “sticker shock” that may occur if those costs are calculated after the fact. Since new expressions are pre-approved, a process could be in place for the new expression to assume liabilities and receive transfer of assets which should be taken into account as the Annual Conference establishes the formula. It is anticipated that the formula elements will be established by GC but identifying the specifics of the elements will be done by each Annual Conference.

GC 2020 would also require each Annual Conference to “pre-approve” a local church’s move to a new expression, if it meets the financial requirements established by the forgoing formula. This does not strip the approval process from the Annual Conference, it merely makes the approval prospective rather than later in the process. This should also assure even handed treatment of local churches joining a new expression and add certainty to the new affiliation process.

By 2022, new expressions could begin presenting themselves to Conferences as an approved candidate for new affiliation by filing the approved petition form with the annual conference. Of course, if some new expressions are not yet far enough along to present themselves, their local supporters in a conference may make a subsidiary motion to postpone the vote on the main motion to a time certain, i.e. the next annual conference. If the annual conference is persuaded it needs more time to consider affiliating with a future new expression, the motion should pass. Such a scenario is where an aspect of Provisional Affiliation kicks in. First, even if the motion to postpone passes, the Conference has had an opportunity to vote on a new expression. Therefore, if a new expression has a critical mass, any local church within the conference that has executed a Provisional Affiliation Agreement will be released from the Conference and will automatically join the new expression, even if the vote on the motion is postponed. Similarly, if a local church has signed a provisional agreement with a new expression and that new expression concludes it is a “lost cause” to ask a conference to join it, any churches within that conference with a Provisional Affiliation agreement will be released without the new expression itself having had to seek a vote.

That’s the bare bones outline of the Plain Grace Plan.

I know even though it’s bare bones there is still  a lot of detail to unpack, but I hope that the Plain Grace Plan, to the extent presented, makes sense. Of course, this is only a limited presentation of the Plan.  The complexity of addressing topics like the ABCs, finances, General and Annual Conference assets and liabilities and pensions are just a few of the significant unaddressed details. Hopefully, the Plain Grace Plan, even if it doesn’t have all the answers as its being presented today, will advance the Holy Conferencing currently underway.

The Plain Grace Plan is an effort to propose a step in the right direction. The reality is, unlike Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz, we don’t get to click our ruby red slippers three times, say “There’s no place like home” and discover our recent past has all been a bad dream. One can ignore reality, but one can’t ignore the consequences of reality.

As you’ve undoubtedly noted, under the Plain Grace Plan the United Methodist Church is not disappearing as a denomination as a result of these initial steps nor are conferences required to exit the denomination.  However, by 2023-24, the United Methodist Church will have a better understanding of how it is being reformed. Clearly it may be smaller. It may be more or less theologically diverse. It may be more U.S. centric or it may be more global. The Plain Grace Plan may encourage some churches and conferences to “wait it out” and see if they are going to be on the “winning side”. I can’t predict the results. But I am confident that those who desire to have more space will be given that opportunity. I’m confident that those who don’t want to leave the United Methodist Church will be given that opportunity. I’m confident that more time would be allowed to sort out the difficult financial, administrative and institutional issues. The Plain Grace Plan also would provide the Episcopacy and Clergy the ability to stay in place in the UMC, but the flexibility to move to a new expression.

Finally, in reply to an earlier post about Gracious New Affiliation a Twitter commenter made the following observation: “Even the most reasonable and gracious of exit plans are useless without accountability provisions. What happens when an AC refuses to honor Gracious Exit or any other obligations? No one is addressing that.” This is my effort to address, at least in part, the legitimate issue raised by that commenter.

While one may question whether the Bard Jones plan effectively addresses the commenter’s question “What happens when an AC refuses to honor Gracious Exit or any other obligations?”, a fair reading of the plan indicates that Bishops Bard and Jones are keenly aware of this underlying problem. Most people thinking about the issue of potential separation are keenly aware of the issue. In considering the potential future of the United Methodist Church the Bard Jones plan lists as the first potential scenario: “Move into the future as we have lived in the recent past, relying on the legislative processes of General Conference to help us make needed change. This would likely lead to few changes to the Traditional Plan and thus continue the escalating cycle of more rules and more defiance thereby damaging our Wesleyan witness.”

I have faith that a fair and even-handed plan, that isnt a contest to decide winners and losers and with built in accountability safeguards, is workable and will help us move into a future that avoids the escalating cycle of more rules and more defiance that will damage our Wesleyan witness further.

Plain Grace to each of you.