GC 2020 – Would the Plain Grace Plan Work for UM Forward? – Analysis
Frank Holbrook 0 GC 2020
In the post entitled GC 2020 – Um Forward’s New Plan – First in a Series of Analyses I offered the opinion that the Plain Grace Plan (“PGP”) might work for UM Forward. The same post may be found at the UM Insights site here. Part of the reason for holding that belief is that I approached the PGP from a mediation standpoint. I recently commented to a friend that drafting the PGP was like acting as a mediator to arrive at an acceptable compromise between groups while they aren’t at the table and they’re not talking. The problem with the approach is that you don’t have the opportunity to ask the absent groups what their reals goals are and how they prioritize those goals. That’s essential information for reaching an acceptable compromise. All I had to go on in discerning goals while drafting the PGP were various written statements of intentions.
As I read the UM Forward NEW Plan I identified four major areas that the plan addressed. There were other ancillary points but I believe this analysis touches on the plan’s major goals. Just like in mediation, when analyzing any proposal it’s important to understand the goals of the proposal’s proponents. It’s also essential to be able to clearly state the goals and understand the importance attached to the goal. If a goal is foundational, a party won’t compromise the goal. An example of a foundational goal would be a personal injury mediation where the injured party has concluded that they can’t settle their claim for less than a certain dollar amount. In short hand, lawyers will talk about that amount being the bottom line: “Our bottom line is that we must have $X”. In that scenario, $X is a foundational goal.
Sometimes what appears to be a goal is actually a consequence. If I a party or a mediator incorrectly believes a consequence is a goal then the parties spend a lot of time sorting that out. When it becomes clear that what was thought to be a goal is really a consequence then a compromise can occur. In mediation that breakthrough often sounds like: “Yes, I can live with that”.
When I offered my opinion that the PGP might work for supporters of UM Forward’s NEW Plan I was thinking like a mediator. I tried to determine whether goals were consequences and if an item was truly a goal, was it foundational. Admittedly, if I erroneously confused goals and consequences my opinion that the PGP might would work for UM Forward was probably wrong. What follows is a summary of my thoughts on the matter.
Apparent Goal # 1 – Dissolving the United Methodist Church
Under the NEW Plan the United Methodist Church will disappear in 2024. Two statements from the plan support that conclusion: (1) “Rather than continuing the conflict, which does significant harm to the vitality of the denomination and local congregations, The United Methodist Church lays itself aside” and (2) “A Plan of Separation shall be presented to a special General Conference, occurring before 2024, that dissolves The United Methodist Church and attends to all practical, legal, and financial considerations related to this dissolution.” Based on those statements the question its clear that the NEW Plan intends to dissolve the denomination. The critical underlying question might be framed as follows: “Is the dissolution of the United Methodist Church a sought after goal or is it merely a consequence of UM Forward’s vision for four new denominations?” If UM Forward is adamant that the United Methodist Church must no longer exist, then the PGP will be unacceptable; the PGP does not dissolve the United Methodist Church. On the other hand, if the dissolution is merely a consequence of creating four new denominations then the PGP might work for UM Forward. Without the benefit of being able to flesh out whether this was a goal or consequence, I concluded it was more likely that the dissolution of the United Methodist Church was more likely a consequence.
That lead to a second question: “Is the creation of four denominations a goal or a consequence of separation?” Is UM Forward saying that there must be four but only four new denominations? Or is it willing to allow for the possibility that other denominations (expressions) may form? If the number four is non-negotiable for UM Forward then the PGP fails to meet the goal; under the PGP any number of new expressions may form. The PGP does not set an arbitrary number and say “there must be this many expressions, no more no less.” The PGP concept is that people will create expressions [denominations] that are right for their vision of ministry. If UM Forward’s goal is for there to be four but only four new denominations, then the PGP will be unacceptable; if there are four denominations as a consequence of the NEW Plan then the PGP alternative may be acceptable. As I read the NEW Plan, its emphasis on “self-determination” would lead me to believe that four denominations is a consequence, not a goal. I also believe that under the PGP the surviving United Methodist Church will probably be either what the NEW Plan labels “Traditionalist Methodist Church” or “Moderate Methodist Church”. I also believed that Under the PGP, the other three denominations identified by the NEW Plan would be able to form as Full Communion Expressions. Thus, the PGP would allow formation of the four denominations identified by the NEW Plan but wouldn’t limit the number to four. In my opinion the PGP approach to denomination formation should satisfy UM Forward, however, I acknowledge that I could be wrong.
Apparent Goal #2 – The immediate moratorium on charges, complaints, and church trials
A second goal of the NEW Plan is an immediate moratorium on items related to homosexuality in the Book of Discipline. The PGP doesn’t include this as part of its plan; the PGP takes no position on the issue. The PGP approach is that the plan of separation should be content neutral. In other words, none of the decision points in the PGP are based on questions like “What is your view on human sexuality” or “You can proceed to separation only if you agree to a moratorium”. I believe there is universal agreement that those are proper questions for GC 2020 and universal expectation that the questions will be addressed in 2020. The PGP takes the approach that those questions don’t have to be answered by the plan of separation. By allowing up or down votes on the underlying issues, delegates can agree to a plan of separation without having to compromise a foundational belief.
If UM Forward is willing to proceed towards separation without linkage to a moratorium then the PGP should be acceptable. Linkage is a concept discussed in more detail here. The PGP’s failure to link a moratorium to the PGP doesn’t mean that the moratorium issue won’t be presented at GC. No one has seen all the petitions, but it’s reasonable to believe that there will be at least one one petition that gives GC 2020 an opportunity to decide, on an up or down basis, whether there should be a moratorium. In fact, UMCNext has filed a number of stand alone petitions that raise the issue as part of their proposed plan and it’s reasonable to assume they will make it to the floor for a vote.
Apparent Goal #3 – The Transitional Council
I don’t consider the creation of a Transitional Council to be a goal; to me it is clearly a consequence of the plan. If this conclusion is correct, then the PGP’s failure to create a Transitional Council should not be stumbling block for UM Forward. On the other hand, if UM Forward will not consider a plan of separation unless the process includes a Transitional Council then the PGP is unacceptable.
Are there possible reasons to insist on a Transitional Council and treat it as a goal, rather than a consequence? It appears the main reason for such a position would be an underlying belief that the Plan of Separation, drafted by the Transitional Council, will address and answer substantive policy questions in a way that is acceptable to UM Forward. If this is the case, then a Transitional Council makes sense. The problem with this assumption is that the Transitional Council might reject solutions favored by UM Forward. If the Transitional Council considered, but rejected, UM Forward’s substantive positions, then the Transitional Council has provided no benefit to UM Forward. Moreover, such a situation would probably result in additional acrimony at the Special General Session envisioned under the New Plan.
As mentioned in the prior section, the PGP assigns decisions on substantive questions to each expression. The treatment of substantive issues in the plan is addressed further in the next section.
Apparent Goal #4 – The Plan of Separation
The NEW Plan seeks a Plan of separation, but believes it can or should be deferred until it is presented to a Special General Conference, occurring before 2024. I’m fairly confident that UM Forward is not saying the denomination shouldn’t act until 2024. I believe the New Plan is implicitly recognizing that it wasn’t aware of a sufficiently detailed plan to implement separation. Providing a detailed plan of separation is the goal of the the PGP and consequently one of its strongest suits; it is a plan ready to be adopted and implemented. The PGP is intended to take care of “all practical, legal, and financial considerations related to this dissolution”. The PGP wasn’t publicly availed until September 13 and it is likely UM Forward was unaware of the plan and had inadequate time to consider its details. If after reviewing the PGP, UM Forward concluded that it wasn’t adequate to address the issues, it could offer amendments to address practical, legal or financial considerations that aren’t covered.
The NEW Plan’s future proposed Plan of Separation, created by the Transitional Council, is supposed to address “self-determination, equitable distribution of general church assets, restorative justice, and reparations”. I believe the PGP clearly addresses the first two categories “self-determination” and “equitable distribution of general church assets”. Self determination is guaranteed by ¶ 431D of the PGP. Equitable distribution of general church assets is set forth in detail at ¶2554 of the plan.
However, the PGP takes no position on restorative justice or reparations. Once again these are substantive issues that could be addressed by stand alone petitions; these two additional areas also seem to involve linkage and leverage. If the issue is framed as “What is the United Methodist Church going to do about restorative justice and reparations?” then the PGP has no answer. If the issue is framed this way, then the NEW Plan apparently advocates for the United Methodist Church addressing these issues as a death bed bequest as one of its final acts before dissolving.
On the other hand, if the issue is framed as “What are the newly created denominations going to do about restorative justice and reparations?” under the PGP the answer will be given as each new denomination holds its organizing conference. Assuming a Liberationist denomination is formed under the PGP it would be absolutely free to frame its policies on restorative justice and reparations in any manner it chooses. ¶431D But consistent with the goal of self-determination, no new denomination would be able to impose its views on other denominations that were also forming at the same time. In addition, since the PGP provides for future asset division based on professing membership [¶2554], when the assets are divided under the PGP a Liberationist denomination would have the financial freedom to use its assets to fund restorative justice and reparations efforts. Moreover, prior to asset division, under the PGP during the period leading up to the asset division a Liberationist denomination would be absolutely free to deploy its resources to further a missional strategy of restorative justice and reparations. The PGP approach to the issue appears reasonable but I admit I may be missing some more nuanced issue.
Conclusion
This post has made a brief case for UM Forward to consider supporting the PGP. Ultimately each delegate’s decision will be based on the discernment process. Hopefully, this post adds to that process.
P.S. I have been posting a series of flow charts that help explain the operation of the Plain Grace Plan. The two charts currently available may be found here and here. Others will be coming soon. Please take the time to view the charts, I think you’ll find them helpful.
