GC 2020 – Thoughts on Gracious Exit and Gracious Affiliation Part 1

Frank Holbrook 2 GC 2020

One of the important topics GC 2019 addressed was the “Gracious Exit.” It is now codified at ¶ 2553, page 776 of the Book of Discipline (“BOD”). Today’s post will be the first of several that consider the current Gracious Exit provisions and the additions or modifications that may be needed in 2020.

A synopsis of the legislative history of the Gracious Exit provision, as well as important clarifications regarding its requirements may be found here at Judicial Decision 1379.

Although there is a lot to say about the Gracious Exit provision, there is too much to say in a single post. Today’s post deals mostly with issues originating in the first paragraph of Gracious Exit provision. That paragraph reads as follows:

Because of the current deep conflict within The United Methodist Church around issues of human sexuality, a local church shall have a limited right, under the provisions of this paragraph, to disaffiliate from the denomination for reasons of conscience regarding a change in the requirements and provisions of the Book of Discipline related to the practice of homosexuality or the ordination or marriage of self-avowed practicing homosexuals as resolved and adopted by the 2019 General Conference, or the actions or inactions of its annual conference related to these issues which follow.

Several observations regarding this starting point are in order.

First, this provision explicitly states that its purpose is to address the deep conflict within the United Methodist Church. How it does this is by providing the doctrinal equivalent of an “emergency exit” from the denomination.

Second, the grounds for invoking the Gracious Exit are much narrower than many members may realize. As I read the paragraph, there are only four grounds for invoking the Gracious Exit provision: (1) reasons of conscience regarding a change in the requirements and provisions of the Book of Discipline related to the practice of homosexuality as resolved and adopted by the 2019 General Conference or (2) reasons of conscience regarding a change in the requirements and provisions of the Book of Discipline related to the ordination of self-avowed practicing homosexuals as resolved and adopted by the 2019 General Conference or (3) reasons of conscience regarding a change in the requirements and provisions of the Book of Discipline related to marriage of self-avowed practicing homosexuals as resolved and adopted by the 2019 General Conference and (4) the actions or inactions of the local church’s annual conference related to these issues which follow after 2019. I caution the reader that this is my reading of the paragraph but it appears to me to be an accurate reading.

The first three reasons allow those local churches with principled objections to the 2019 BOD changes to employ the exit provision. It should be noted, that the Gracious Exit embodied in ¶ 2553, by its own terms, will not apply to any changes made to the BOD in 2020. Thus, if a majority of GC 2020 votes to modify the BOD on any one or more of these three issues, there is no Gracious Exit available to local churches that disagree with the 2020 changes. This suggests that GC 2020 may need to revisit the Gracious Exit provision if the BOD is revised regarding any one of these three topics.

The fourth reason for exit allows local churches in an Annual Conference that engages in principled disobedience to the BOD to disaffiliate. If one surveys the results of the 2019 Annual Conference season within the Church a number of examples may be found that will have triggered this escape provision. Moreover, it would appear that if an Annual Conference refuses to enforce the 2019 BOD’s changes that might be an event that triggers a right for the local church to employ the Gracious Exit provision. Essentially, this fourth ground for exit provides relief for those local churches that adhere to the BOD on these three topics to leave the denomination because their Annual Conference rejects the changes. It creates the anomalous result of a local church that is faithful to the BOD, and therefore faithful to the polity of the United Methodist Church, being required to disaffiliate from the denomination because of the disobedience of its governing Annual Conference.

What might surprise many local churches is the fact that the BOD doesn’t allow the Gracious Exit provisions to be invoked merely because the local church is tired of the ongoing debate or similar reasons. There is no catchall provision that allows local church’s to exit for any and all grounds that may touch upon the ongoing the human sexuality debate. In short, a local church can’t make a general objection along the lines of “we’re tired of this whole human sexuality debate” and use that as a basis for invoking the Gracious Exit. The Gracious Exit is conditional, it’s only available if the specified triggering conditions exist.

What happens when a local church avails itself of the Gracious Exit? It falls into the category of “Disaffiliated.” ¶ 2553 states “a local church shall have a limited right, under the provisions of this paragraph, to disaffiliate from the denomination.” In other words, a local church choosing the Gracious Exit route is leaving the United Methodist Church. In the case of a church leaving because of disobedience by its Annual Conference (ground 4), there is really no other practical option to disaffiliation since Annual Conferences have exclusive Geographic territories.

The foundation of the Gracious Exit provision is the principle underlying the 2019 General Conference that the United Methodist Church should stay united as a denomination. The Bishops’ call made it clear that the purpose of GC 2019 was to find a way forward to unity; GC 2019 was not a call to explore multiplication of the Wesleyan expression of Methodism by the vehicle of creating new expressions. The purpose of the Gracious Exit provision was to deal with those churches that were leaving the United Methodist Church against the expressed will of the church to stay united as a denomination.

Therein lies the heart of a significant issue. If GC 2020 decides to encourage the creation of new expressions and sets parameters for “approved” new expressions then shouldn’t it also recognize that a different Gracious Exit will be needed? I’d suggest that an exit as a result of joining an approved new expression is not merely a difference in degree, it is a difference in kind. In the first instance a church is leaving against the will of the United Methodist Church; in the second instance the local church is leaving with the denomination’s blessing. Consequently, a new type of exit should be formulated.

If an exit to an approved new expression is truly different in kind, I also believe that GC 2020 should avoid using the term “disaffiliation” for the result of that process. If clarity of legislative language is desired, a term such as “Fresh Affiliation” or “New Affiliation” should be employed rather than “disaffiliation.” It seems perfectly logical to treat a “Fresh Affiliation” differently than a “disaffiliation”. In fact, wouldn’t it be clearer to think of a “Gracious Affiliation” as something different from a “Gracious Exit”. In the case of a “Gracious Affiliation” a local church is leaving with the United Methodist Church’s blessing, in the case of a “Gracious Exit” the local church is leaving against the United Methodist Church’s will.

Language and labels are important. I considered suggesting the term reaffiliation rather than “Fresh” or “New” Affiliation. The problem with reaffiliation is that it is possible that the United Methodist Church might desire, and leave open, a path for a departing local church to return to the United Methodist Church. If that occurs, or if that path is left open, then that is truly “reaffiliation.”

In a church that is blessed by truly gifted wordsmiths, I am confident that a better term might emerge that fully captures the essence of what a fresh or new affiliation is. In our church vocabulary we have many verbal images that highlight the beauty of the beliefs in new birth, new life and resurrection. I’m sure that if the spirit of new expressions, a spirit of multiplication of Wesleyan Methodism, is captured it can be described in a phrase that fully captures the positive aspects of what is occurring.

Finally, as persons who read this post know, I am retired lawyer. I was a lawyer who mostly tried cases for a living. That process is adversarial. But I’m also a mediator. As I’ve written these posts I’ve used my experiences as a lawyer to assist my thought process. But I’ve also relied heavily on what I’ve learned as a mediator. A mediator’s job is to help the parties to a dispute find a solution that everyone can live with; it is the role of a peacemaker. Hopefully, some of the thought processes here, and the additional thought processes these posts may inspire, will allow us to find a new unity and a new peace to proceed with our mission of making disciples for Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.  There is an old saw: “When the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.” We should remember that all the the problems we face aren’t nails.

PS: I close with a special note of thanks to Chris Ritter. Chris has worked tirelessly to help people understand the context of the United Methodist Church’s current situation. As I followed the lead up to GC 2019, Chris’ site Peopleneedjesus.net became a place I would check daily for new posts. His willingness to post links to articles with different perspectives on the issues facing the church made his site essential daily reading for others and me. It still is today. His tireless work is truly appreciated. His evenhanded and thoughtful approach to the work of General Conference demonstrates the very best of what I call Virtual Christian Conferencing.

Chris’ efforts are even more remarkable when one considers that running a website isn’t his day job. In addition to pastoring a church, running his website and being an important voice in the discussions regarding the church’s future, Chris and his wife will be in Kenya from August 11-18 helping Africa delegates with their legislative concepts. Please keep Chris, his wife and the Africa delegates in your prayers.

Thanks Chris, for all your help and encouragement as I’ve embarked on this walk towards 2020. May God continue to bless you, your family and your ministry.