GC 2020 – Thoughts on Gracious Exit and Gracious Affiliation Part 2

Frank Holbrook 1 GC 2020

Today I’m going to put you into the shoes of a hypothetical law student. Here is a final exam question you are given to answer:

Consider the following fact pattern:

A family has owned a vehicle for a number of years. They aren’t wealthy, we might even describe them as a family of the working poor. They use it mostly to get to their jobs, but they also use it for other reasons. There are a lot of fond memories associated with the vehicle. Among the fond memories are family vacations where they have gone to share times with their extended family, occasional nights out for a fast food meal when the budget can afford it and the weekly ritual of driving to and from Church on Sunday mornings.

Due to constant use, the family needs to consider replacing the vehicle. It’s a long and arduous process. The list of pros and cons is drawn up. Practical and sentimental considerations fill the list. They understand they may need to replace the vehicle but It’s not an easy decision. One day a trusted family advisor stops by for dinner and the topic of what to do with the vehicle comes up. The family asks the advisor to facilitate the conversation. After considering all the pros and cons the family finally decides to take a family vote. Each family member around the table votes, and although the vote is not unanimous, the family decides to purchase a new vehicle. It’s a painful decision.

The family goes to a local car lot. Because they have limited means their choices of which car lot to go to is limited. In fact, there is only one lot in town that they can do business with. It’s the car lot that will not only sell the car but will provide financing. The family looks around and finds a new (to them) vehicle they can live with. The salesman takes them to the office to close the deal. They are anxious because they know they don’t really have any option; this is the only place in town they’ll be able to buy a car.

The salesman hands them a pre-printed form contract that has a lot of blanks but none of them are completed. There is a blank for the cost of the vehicle. There are also blanks for other options such as credit life insurance, vehicle preparation fees, inspection fees and a host of other potentially costly charges. The salesman says sign this and you’ll soon be on your way. There is a huge disparity in bargaining power and sophistication between the buyers and seller. The seller has all the power in the transaction. But they have no option, they’ve made the decision to sell the old vehicle and purchase the new one, so they sign the agreement.

The salesman tells the family to go to the waiting room and he’ll finish the process. He turns the contract into the back office and there the accountants and a lawyer fill in the blanks. At some point the salesman goes back to the family and tells them the cost of vehicle. They are surprised at the unexpectedly high cost. By the time a price was inserted and all the fees and charges were added the family really can’t afford the car but they don’t have an option. Reluctantly they agree to the price and get ready to shuffle to the door to take possession of their new (to them) vehicle. The salesman tells them to wait just a little while longer. He informs the family the 5 member credit committee has to meet and vote on whether to accept the deal. They sit back down and wait for the vote to take place not really sure whether they have a deal or not. The salesman continues, it turns out the credit committee only meets once a month and it won’t meet again for another three weeks. The family shuffles of and loads themselves into their old vehicle and drives back home to await word on whether they have a deal or not.

On the way home buyer’s remorse sets in and the family concludes if they had it to do over again they’d just keep the old vehicle.

Hypothetical Exam Question 1: Are there practices that you question in the forgoing hypothetical? If so, explain.

Hypothetical Exam Question 2: Identify the external factors that complicate the family’s buying decision and limited potential options.

Hypothetical Exam Question 3: How would you improve the buying process so that it is more equitable for each side of the transaction?

Your exam is over. Back to the topic of the day.

I think most people reading that hypothetical fact scenario will feel some level of uneasiness. Although it might be slightly exaggerated it is not far from the reality that exists in our world for many people. As socially concerned Christians we see similar examples around us on an almost daily basis. If you take a moment you can probably think of other examples. Many of us may have seen car lots that operate in similar fashion, although the hypothetical facts here are slightly exaggerated. I believe that most persons reading this, even those without a legal background, would be able to answer Hypothetical Question No. 3:  How would you improve the buying process so that it is more equitable for each side of the transaction?

Now consider the following:

3. Decision Making Process—The church conference shall be conducted in accordance with ¶ 248 and shall be held within one hundred twenty (120) days after the district superintendent calls for the church conference. In addition to the provisions of ¶ 246.8, special attention shall be made to give broad notice to the full professing membership of the local church regarding the time and place of a church conference called for this purpose and to use all means necessary, including electronic communication where possible, to communicate. The decision to disaffiliate from The United Methodist Church must be approved by a two-thirds (2/3) majority vote of the professing members of the local church present at the church conference.

4. Process Following Decision to Disaffiliate from The United Methodist Church—If the church conference votes to disaffiliate from The United Methodist Church, the terms and conditions for that disaffiliation shall be established by the board of trustees of the applicable annual conference, with the advice of the cabinet, the annual conference treasurer, the annual conference benefits officer, the director of connectional ministries, and the annual conference chancellor. The terms and conditions, including the effective date of disaffiliation, shall be memorialized in a binding Disaffiliation Agreement between the annual conference and the trustees of the local church, acting on behalf of the members. That agreement must be consistent with the following provisions:

¶ 2553 of the Book of Discipline (in part).

The current Gracious Exit provision in the BOD was drafted with the underlying objective of striking a proper balance between the interests of churches deciding to leave the denomination and the institutional interests of the United Methodist Church. At GC 2019, the objective was to find a way for the church, as a whole, to remain unified as one institution. The Gracious Exit was intended to reach a proper resolution between allowing churches to leave and GC 2019’s objective of finding a way for the church to stay unified. The Gracious Exit was certainly more gracious than the situation that existed before its enactment. I applaud the work that provided for a Gracious Exit. In fact, it may still provide outline the proper process for local churches desiring to exit the United Methodist Church altogether.

However, if GC 2020 decides its work is to encourage new expressions it needs to consider and craft a provision that is consistent with that objective. It needs to think about a “Gracious New Affiliation” provision. In other words, GC 2020 might need a Gracious Exit for those churches leaving and a Gracious New Affiliation for those churches moving to an approved new expression. I have some thoughts about what a Gracious New Affiliation provision might look like and in my next post I intend to present those thoughts.

By providing the hypothetical and the two paragraphs from the Gracious Exit provision, it is not my intention to condemn the existing Gracious Exit. GC 2019 provided a way where there was no way. The hypothetical can be viewed as a parable. It might be called “The Parable of the Used Car Lot” or “The Parable of the Desperate Family.” What kind of parable should be written to explain the work of GC 2020? Right now, during the pre-petition period, people can dream of the parable they want to write. In May of 2020 we’ll be forced to write the parable based on what petitions are presented. That is why the current work and conversations are so vitally important.

It has been said that politics is the art of the possible. The holy work of the General Conference is also the art of the possible, with the added element that with God all things are possible.

IMPORTANT NOTE:  Over the last few days I have received e-mails from WordPress indicating people are subscribing but they are not showing up in my e-mail list.  This apparently is a temporary bug and I’m working to sort things out.  If you have recently subscribed and aren’t receiving an e-mail notification please e-mail me at Umcmatthew281920@gmail.com with your first and last name and your e-mail address and I’ll add you manually.  You should then receive an e-mail requesting that you confirm your subscription.  Sorry for the inconvenience!

Tomorrow’s post will not be about GC 2020. It will fall under the category “Life in General”.

If you enjoy this site, please subscribe and you’ll get an e-mail each time there is a new post. I don’t share your e-mail with anyone. SEE NOTE ABOVE.  Thanks for reading.