GC 2020: UMCNext’s Proposal – PlaneGrace’s Analysis

Frank Holbrook 1 Uncategorized

UPDATE SEPTEMBER 26, 2019.  THIS ARTICLE WAS ORIGINALLY POSTED AUGUST 19, 2019 BEFORE THE UMCNEXT PETITIONS WERE SUBMITTED.  A FUTURE ARTICLE WILL ANALYZE THE PETITIONS THAT WERE SUBMITTED.

UMCNext has published its Proposal, a four page document consisting of four components. Although the UMCNext document is labeled a “proposal” it is basically the type of document that others have called a plan or draft plan. For consistency, I generically refer to all of these submissions as a plan; specifically I will refer to the UMCNext Proposal as the “Next Plan.”

Page 1 of the Next Plan is a preamble that recites a number of objectives. Page 2 consists of nine major bullet points with some sub-points that are referred to as “Key Elements”. Page 3 lists eight numbered points identified as “Components.” The last page is a brief timeline for the plan. There is considerable overlap between the objectives, key elements and components. Page 1 is clearly the background rational for the plan and high level aspirational goals. From reading the plan, its hard to discern a major distinction between Key Elements and Components or what the difference is between these categories.

A comparison of the Bard Jones Plan, the Indy Plan and the Next Plan shows a great deal of high level commonality with disagreement over details. Given the commonalities there is hope that a common sense plan to multiply expressions of Methodism may be arrived at before the start of General Conference 2020. If that occurs, a single plan could be presented with broad support. That would be a significant first step in achieving healing and a degree of unity within the United Methodist Church.

Here are the significant areas of general agreement that I perceive to exist. In some cases I may be stating the obvious But I think its worthwhile to point to places of generally agreement and not focuse solely on areas of disagreement.

(1) The Need for More Space Between Groups within the United Methodist Church

Each plan provides distance between groups that have been at odds over the provisions of the BOD. Both the Indy Plan and the Next Plan solve this problem by leaving a form of the United Methodist Church in place and providing a method for some local churches or annual conferences to leave the denomination. The Indy Plan adds the possibility for a future additional split if a progressive expression exits from the United Methodist Church and the possibility. The Indy Plan also allows for additional new expressions comprised of a minimum of fifty local churches or an annual conference. The Bard Jones plan leaves the United Methodist Church in place as a legal entity that essentially is an umbrella organization that provides services to two or three newly created expressions. The Next Plan is silent on how new expressions may form and what criteria would be used to recognize “new expressions formerly a part of The UMC”; it leaves the exit decision to local churches and implicitly leaves the Jurisdictional and Annual Conference structure of the current United Methodist Churcintact. Although, each plan varies in details, each plan is an admission that some separation must occur.

(2) A relatively short time Time Frame for Decision and implementation

All of the plans propose a relatively short time frame to create space within the existing United Methodist Church. The Bard Jones Plan uses a window between 2020 and 2025 (“To achieve this, we envision that the United Methodist Church will have no individual members in 2025 . . . “); the Indy Plan suggests a time frame that begins in 2020 and is implemented by January 1, 2022 (Point 15 of the Indy Plan); the Next Plan suggests a time frame that begins in 2020 and is complete in 2024. Although the three plans take different approaches there is a consensus that the decisions need to made in a relatively short time frame. In the Plain Grace Plan I suggested a process that would occur in the time frame from 2020 to 2028.

(3) The Need to Address the Future of the Existing Administrative and Missional Structure

The Bard Jones plan provides a fairly comprehensive treatment of Agencies, Boards and Commissions (“ABCs”) and assumes shared participation and control of most of the ABCs by the new expressions. Under the the Indy Plan Wespath, UMCOR, UMW, and the United Methodist Publishing House would be established as independent 501(c)3 organizations and the remaining ABCs would remain as part of the surviving United Methodist Church composed of “Centrist/Progressive” congregations. Under the Next Plan, the administrative structure of the United Methodist Church appears to remain intact, an unspecified parting payment is made to the expressions departing the church and shared services, including but not limited to Wespath, UMCOR, and the General Commission on Archives and History, are offered to new expressions formerly a part of The UMC.

(4) The Need to Preserve Existing Pension Commitments

All plans recognize the need to preserve existing Pension Commitments. The reality is that for any plan to have a hope of passing this will be a non-negotiable item. A plan that doesn’t commit to funding existing pensions is a non-starter. It may call for reflection as to whether, and if so why, this issue appears to be the one where the unity of the church is greatest. I believe that at some point in the near future the United Methodist Church financial constraints will force the church to alter its current system and move from defined benefit pension plan to a future where the defined contribution plan is the norm. This has nothing to do with forming new expressions or leaving the denomination intact. It is a financial reality that must be faced.

How Should the Next Plan be Described? Is there an Analogy?

In my earlier post GC 2020 – The Indianapolis Plan vs. the Bard Jones Plan – a First Take  I made the following observation:

I would analogize the Indy Plan to a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy where a corporate entity enters bankruptcy and reorganizes into two separate corporations going forward. The reorganizing entity would probably file a plan that asks the court to approve a reorganization where the parent company continues to operate but spins off some of its assets into an International Group with some limited Domestic operations.

If I continued the corporate analogy, I would describe the Bard Jones Plan as a corporate reorganization with a surviving parent company and three new operating subsidiaries. The parent becomes a shell holding company providing back room support to the two or three new operating companies. The two or three new operating companies would be in charge of services and work within their area of expertise.

I openly acknowledge that comparing the church to a private business entity has a number of flaws. The church is not a privately held nor publicly traded company and is definitely not “in business” to make money. It’s ministry cannot be neatly compared to a company providing goods or services. But using the corporate analogy provides a very rough framework that may help some people understand what is generally being proposed. I believe a greater number of lay people understand corporate operation than church polity. That’s why I use the admittedly rough and flawed approximation.

Realizing that the comparison is rough, incomplete and flawed  what shorthand description would I use to describe the Next Plan? It appears to share a number of elements of a corporate takeover. It’s probably in the eye of the holder whether the takeover is “hostile” or “friendly” but, in my opinion, it qualifies as a hostile takeover bid. The phrase “hostile takeover” is not meant to disparage the plan; many hostile takeovers are undertaken for the right reason. “Hostile” does not necessarily equate to bad or instituted by ill motives. There are many hostile takeovers that disinterested observers believe are the correct course of action.  This may or may not be one of those instances, depending on your viewpoint.

To my thinking, two key items point to using the analogy of a hostile takeover bid. First, is the immediate reversal of the United Methodist Church’s long standing policy regarding human sexuality. It is apparent from the emphasis given to this point throughout the plan that obtaining a certain result is a key underpinning of the plan. The Next Plan adopts the following as two of its “Key Elements”:

An immediate moratorium on charges against LGBTQ clergy, clergy performing same-sex weddings, or other charges stemming from the provisions of the Traditional Plan.

Remove the terms of the General Conference 2019 Traditional Plan and other incompatibility references from The Book of Discipline

It also provide as two of its “Components”:

1. Create a moratorium on all complaints and disciplinary proceedings related to the enforcement and accountability mechanisms connected to the Traditional Plan, including any complaints or disciplinary proceedings related to clergy performing same-sex weddings in our churches or the licensing, commissioning, or ordination of LGBT persons.

6. Remove all language in The Book of Discipline used to restrict pastors and churches from conducting same-sex weddings and annual conferences from licensing or ordaining self-avowed, practicing LGBTQ persons.

Finally, in its time line, it states that in 2022 a called General Conference will “Remove all language related to LGBTQ persons”.

Thus, the Next Plan addresses human sexuality issues by requiring a foreordained result.  It’s proposed policies reverses editing church policies.  Reversing some course of action is generally the reason for commencing a hostile takeover.

The last piece, set out in the timeline, requiring a General Conference result in 2022 is particularly troubling since it ignores the bedrock polity principle that one General Conference cannot bind a later General Conference. The Next Plan does not suggest how it will overcome this major stumbling block. I belive it is legally impossible for GC 2020 to take any action that requires a General Confernce in 2022 to take a preserving course of action. The Next Plan seems to implicitly assume that by 2022 it will have eliminated enough dissenting votes to achieve its desired outcome.

The second indicator of the Next Plan being a hostile takeover bid, is the coupling of two provisions. First, the Next Plan adopts a default option that leaves a local church within the United Methodist Church. It couples its default option with the high bar of a two thirds majority for a local church to opt out of the denomination. The practical impact of coupling these two points should not be underestimated.

As structured, the Next Plan results in every local church that does not obtain a two thirds majority of votes on an exit ballot to remain in the United Methodist Church. In other words, if a church voted by a margin of 66% to 34% to leave and join another expression, the local church would NOT be permitted to exit and would remain a United Methodist Church church. If one thinks that there already is some tension in local churches over human sexuality issues, imagine the tension and rancor that will occur if 66% of local church members vote to leave the United Methodist Church but they are told they can’t. This is a recipe for disaster. One doesn’t have to limit that potential to the 66/34 extreme. For those “losers’ i.e. ballot “winners” who prevail in the range of fifty percent plus one vote to two thirds minus one vote, there is the potential for rancor. This potential practical result seems very much at odds with the Next Plan’s objective, recited in the preamble, “The proposal does not create winners or losers . . .” I doubt that local churches who are forced to choose will generally think there have been no winners or losers.

Beyond the Analogy – Is there Room for Improvement in the Next Plan?

There is at least one other point that the proponents of the Next Plan may wish to reconsider when the group evaluates critiques of its plan. That point deals with the Next Plan’s suggested use of a mediator. The plan proposes using a mediator in the following situations using specific criteria:

A professional mediator is used to help all parties process aspects of this legislation and its financial component. Best selection criteria for mediator: non-United Methodist, certified and experienced, pro bono.

I think there are three problems with these selection criteria. I make this observations from the perspective as a person who has participated in numerous mediations and is a certified civil mediator in the State of Tennessee.

First, I am not sure why the non- United Methodist criteria is required of the mediator. The role of a mediator is to bring parties together. The mediator is NOT a decision maker. Any party to a mediation retains the power to say no. It’s not as if a mediator who is labeled as “traditional”, “centrist” or “progressive” has the right to make a decision that binds the other parties. If the mediator was a decision maker, such as an arbitrator, then I could understand (But not necessarily agree with) the limitation of using a non-United Methodist.

Second, by using a non-United Methodist mediator, the Next Plan almost assuredly guarantees a mediator who is unfamiliar with the existing Book of Discipline and Institutional Concerns of the United Methodist Church. They will probably be unfamiliar with the existing Agencies, Boards and Commissions and how they interact. In my opinion, a mediator with this background knowledge will be better able to understand the subtle issues and concerns that separate the parties. A mediator without this knowledge will either be operating in the dark or will spend a great deal of time and effort to gain this background knowledge.

Finally, I am not sure it is realistic to expect a mediator to serve “pro bono”, i.e without compensation. The Next Plan says a mediator will work on both “legislative” and “financial” issues. I assume that the Next Plan that some framework will be created that allows a number of financial and legislative issues to be resolved prior to General Conference. The best practice would be for most of these issues to be resolved without the intervention of a mediator. The remaining legislative and financial issues that need resolution be a mediator will be the most difficult. I think it is reasonable to anticipate that a mediator will spend a significant amount of time working on the issues. Considering that the resolution will be both time sensitive and complex, I’m not sure it’s realistic to assume a non-United Methodist mediator can be located who will devote significant time to understanding the background polity, learn about the disputed issues and mediate those issues in a time sensitive context without compensation. It may happen, but the Next Plan significantly limits its pool of potential mediators by imposing these limitations.

The Next Plan may be able to explain its rational but there are countervailing points that may not have been considered.

Something New

To its credit, the Next Plan expressly introduces the idea of a Resource Allocation Formula (Point 3 of the plan’s Components). However, since the Next Plan is silent on how it proposes to identify qualifying new expressions that emerge from the existing United Methodist Church it is unclear how the proposed resource allocation will work. Moreover, since the General Conference will not know the number of local churches that might leave to form a new expression, the Next Plan’s mandate for GC 2020 to budget funds for the potential payments seems to ask the GC to pick a number out of the air with no supporting data (“Funds would need to be budgeted by the 2020 General Conference.” Point 3 of the plan’s Components). The Next Plan’s call for a mediator to help create the formula is an implicit mission that this component is aspirational but undefined.

The Next Plan’s “Commission on the 21st Century Church”

An aspect of the plan that I personally find troubling is the plan’s call to “Create a Commission on the 21st Century Church to prepare a comprehensive proposal for a for [sic] new structure and governance plan that addresses historic inequities and injustice and includes clarification related to the adaptability of The Book of Discipline.” (Point 5 of the Components). It appears that the plan intends for a group of denominational “thought leaders” to come together and decide the future of the 21st Century Church. This presumably would be followed by a General Conference in 2022 that would be asked to adopt the plan. My experience is that people are generally loathe to reject “expert” recommendations and in all likelihood this small group will shape the newly reimagined 21st Century Church. However, one only has to review the recent past for a number of occasions where the best intentioned thought leaders proposed a plan that got it wrong. I’m sure the hope is that the plan will be a utopian solution to all the problems that beset the church and will more faithfully reflect Christ’s vision for the church in the world; that sets the bar of expectations very high.

Thus, under the Next Plan in the time period from 2020-2022 local churches will be asked to remain with the Centrist/Progressive United Methodist Church and in 2022 they will lean what their new church looks like for the 21st Century. I have articulated my bedrock belief that new expressions should be formed before people are asked to join the new expression. I described it as the Fundamental Flaw of the Indy Plan here and discussed why the the Bard Jones Plan had the sequencing wrong here. Having members “remain” in the United Methodist Church and then inform them what they have chosen to remain in after the fact, runs counter to that principle.

Final Thoughts

Hopefully the forgoing discussion helps people to engage in Virtual Holy Conferencing that includes the Next Plan and other alternatives, both existing alternatives and those to come.

Time limits the amount of work anyone can spend considering plans or proposals. Nontheless, all of the plans share a common limitation that makes consideration more time consuming and more difficult. Every plan has a number of high level goals and the reality is that each plan involves trade offs between competing goals. None of the plans provide a narrative explaining how individual plan components provide a compromise of the competing goals of any plan. However, ideally each plan would move beyond bullet points and explain the thinking behind the trade offs adopted in the plan. Transparency would help people understand why a compromise is being suggested. Since no plan provides such a narrative, one is left to engage in speculation and conjecture as to why provisions are suggested as the right compromise to be reached. This season in the church’s life is not really a proper time to invoke the Wizard of Oz’s admonition: “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.”

The lack of narrative is a great reason for interested persons to read Rev. John Stephen’s blog Embody Grace found here.  He is providing ongoing posts that explain his thoughts on the balancing done between the provisions of the Indy Plan. Additional background on the Indy Plan can also be found at Rev. Daren Cushman Wood’s blog Newmethodism.

If readers have located other good sources of background information explaining the rational behind the plans, I’d appreciate links to such sites. The links may be posted in the comments but please observe a limit of one link per comment; otherwise, the comment may end up in my spam folder.

People seeking a pleasing resolution to the issues facing the United Methodist Church must look behind the glittering generalities of proposed plans and address the actual functioning of any plan that may be adopted. Particular consideration should be given to the consequences, both intended and unintended of each plan.  To do less than this will not solve our common problems or advance our  common values.

As always, thanks for reading.

Come Holy Spirit.