Matthew 7:15
The conflict we are facing in The United Methodist Church right now is not an accident. What is happening at General Conference 2019 is a culmination of a comprehensive blueprint to purge the UMC of “non-orthodox” views and those who hold them…a blueprint circulated in 2004.
We know this because the frameworks for the Traditional(ist) Plan, the Connectional Conference Plan, the formation of the Wesleyan Covenant Association, and even the dissolution of the denomination were all proposed in a document published for and discussed by the Good News Board of Directors in 2004. Fifteen years later, their efforts were successful: all their anticipated plans are on the threshold of being the future of The United Methodist Church today.
I encourage you to read the whole nine-page document for yourself (web version and PDF version – and here’s a permanent mirror if they get taken down). It is titled “Options for the Future, with some Strategic Implications, Summer 2004.” The authors are current and former Good News board members and staff Revs. Mark Dicken, Scott Field, Phil Granger, and Tom Lambrecht. The authorship and contents are verified in this 2006 article.
Hot Takes
The average United Methodist would likely be appalled at the secular hardball politics celebrated by this 5,000 word document—without a speck of biblical justification. Among the many offensive statements and tactics, here are a few of the most troubling:
- The UMC has “theological schizophrenia.” P. 1
- “Inclusiveness has become the new idolatry of The United Methodist Church.” P. 4
- “The majority party within the church would essentially expel the minority party in order to create unity.” P. 5
- “The orthodox [sic] have mastered the legislative process…hoping that those who could not support or live with these requirements would leave the denomination.” P. 5
- “There will need to be more explicit methods of direct forced departure.” P. 5
- “renewal groups” (good guys) are fighting against a “revisionist rebellion” (bad guys). P. 5
- The document has plans wherein “the United Methodist Church would cease to exist.” P. 7
- The document laments simply leaving because “It also leaves the United Methodist denomination somewhat intact.” P. 8
The document could be dismissed as an extreme outlier from the past. But its five plans are being carefully executed right now at General Conference 2019.
This also puts the opposition to any other plan (the One Church Plan and the Simple Plan) in a clearer context, as any unified church where everyone has a place at the table is antithetical to the narrow view of the church this document recommends.
Read on for a detailed comparison of the extreme views of this document and the extreme plans for a “new wineskin” now unfolding before the General Conference.
Plan A: Forced Departure = Narrowly Escaped in 2016
Forced Departure. This is the drumbeat of increasingly exclusionary polity from General Conference 2008, 2012, and where we were headed in 2016. But in 2016, the delegates voted to ask the Bishops to lead and the One Church Plan, supported by the Council of Bishops, has short-circuited this Plan…for now.
Benefits of Forced Departure:
- “based on the model of church discipline, wherein the majority party within the church would essentially expel the minority party in order to create unity.” P. 5
- “It would be done directly by requiring some type of “loyalty oath” or other enforcement mechanism…” p. 5
- “The orthodox have mastered the legislative process and have been progressively tightening the requirements regarding homosexuality and (to a lesser extent) doctrine, hoping that those who could not support or live with these requirements would leave the denomination.” P. 5
- “As the revisionist rebellion becomes more blatant, there will need to be more explicit methods of direct forced departure, through the judicial complaint process, elections processes, and through Boards of Ordained Ministry.” Pp.5-6
Expressed Drawbacks to Forced Departure:
“The drawback of forced departure is that it creates a hostile environment within the church, whereby some are forced to fight against others to seek their exit or removal from the church. One wonders whether the General Conference or any other group of United Methodists has the stomach for the extended battle that would be required to carry out this option. The 2004 General Conference refused to implement strengthened accountability language, choosing instead to ‘be nice.’ One also wonders what long-term impacts would remain on the church as a result of this hostile battling. Would the victory be worth the cost?” p. 6
By choosing to create the Commission on A Way Forward, General Conference rejected this Plan in 2016. And if no plan passes in 2019, it would put us back on this path in 2020.
Plan B: Heterogeneous Denomination = Connectional Conference Plan
Heterogeneous Denomination. This is the Connectional Conference Plan. It is currently actively touted by Bishops Scott Jones and Gary Mueller and WCA member Chris Ritter.
Benefits of Heterogenous Denomination:
- “Rather than continuing to fight against the revisionists for control of the denomination, we would seek to decentralize control in the denomination and make a safe and healthy place for evangelicals to do ministry within the United Methodist Church.” P.6
- “Create non-geographical “affinity” annual conferences and jurisdictions that may be based on theology, type of church, ethnic group, polity, or any other factor that could be an organizing principle.” P. 6
- Make “the General Conference more of a loose association of those governing units.” P.6
- “It would eliminate the battles for control by structuring the church as a voluntary association and taking a “live and let live” attitude toward those who disagree.” P.6
Drawbacks of Heterogenous Denomination:
“United Methodism would no longer stand for much of anything as a denomination” and “it would put evangelicals in the position of belonging to a group that would allow beliefs and behaviors that are antithetical to the Gospel.” P.6
The WCA has stated that they would leave the denomination anyway if the CCP passes for this exact reason.
Plan C: High Expectation Covenant = Modified Traditional(ist) Plan
High Expectation Covenant Community. This is the Modified Traditional(ist) Plan. Numerous articles on it: 1, 2, 3, 4.
Benefits of High Expectation Covenant Community:
- Includes all components of Forced Departure.
- “There would need to be a renewal of the restated covenant for every member, pastor, and congregation. Those churches and individuals who could not affirm the renewed covenant would have to leave the denomination…” p. 7
- It would require “enhanced accountability” and “more power being given to the bishops.” P.7
Drawbacks of High Expectation Covenant Community:
- Similar to “forced departure” and “provision would need to be made for retaining property, pensions, and the like.” P. 7
This is why they need the “gracious exit” provisions within the Modified Traditional Plan: they are removing the barriers to exit when they make “the environment of the church so hostile to the minority party that they choose to leave or to agree to amicable separation.”
Plan D: Amicable Separation = Plan Of Dissolution
Amicable Separation. This is the plan to dissolve the United Methodist Church, presented by Keith Boyette, President of the WCA. Incidentally, this is the only part of the document that mentions Central Conferences.
Benefits of Amicable Separation:
- “based on both sides agreeing that a separation needs to take place.” P.7
- “General Conference calling for some type of commission or task group to create a plan of separation is the likely form this option would take.” P.7
- “Central Conferences would have the choice of becoming autonomous Methodist churches or affiliating with one of the new denominations.” P.7
- “the United Methodist Church would cease to exist, and every individual and congregation would be forced to make a conscious choice of which new denomination to become part of (or to become independent).” P.7
Drawbacks of Amicable Separation:
“Requirement that both sides agree, in order for it to be effective. One side can hold the other hostage by refusing to agree. It would also require a high level of agreement by General Conference delegates, who tend to be institutional preservers and unlikely to easily come to such agreement.” P.8
Boyette’s petition for dissolution has recently been ruled “not in harmony” with the called General Conference, so this possibility cannot be considered until 2020 unless the 2019 delegates vote to revive it.
Plan E: Voluntary Departure = Wesleyan Covenant Association
Voluntary Departure. This is the Wesleyan Covenant Association serving as “a new formal network” for a new denomination. It is dependent on the “Exit Provisions” that they are proposing at General Conference.
Benefits of Voluntary Departure:
- “It is the most frequent model of structural separation in the history of Methodism.” P.8
- “does not require creating a high level of hostility within the denomination in order to succeed.” P.8
- “It can be implemented by a highly committed group within the church, with minimal need for agreement by the General Conference.” P.8
Disadvantages of Voluntary Departure:
“It may require some congregations to leave their property behind (although one hopes a large enough critical mass of those departing could work around this problem). It also leaves the United Methodist denomination somewhat intact, with the accumulation of resources to potentially continue for decades on a progressively revisionist track.” P. 8
This disadvantage helps explain the WCA’s President, Rev. Keith Boyette presenting legislation to the 2019 General Conference for the dissolution of the denomination. The UMC is so offensive to this group that leaving is not enough, it must be destroyed.
Conclusion
This Good News document represents five different strategies to implement one clear vision: “certainty and uniformity within the UMC.” (P.5) The authors believe that uniformity can be achieved only by separation. We are, in other words, better off if we are separate than if we are together.
I do not share this view of the church. I believe that the vast majority of United Methodists appreciate our historic “big tent” approach to faith. I believe that the vision portrayed in this document represents the viewpoint of a very small faction within the denomination. Even if renewal group professed membership is quite large, I suspect their membership would be appalled at the actual use of such hardball power politics.
From my point of view, the single most offensive quote in the document is the one on expelling progressives through “making the environment of the church so hostile to the minority party that they choose to leave or agree to amicable separation.” As delegate Rev. Gregory Gross has articulated, such a directive contributes to the suicide, depression, substance abuse, and homeless rates among LGBTQI youth. The collateral damage from this strategy to make churches unwelcoming to LGBTQI youth and adults is just heartbreaking, and progressives’ acquiescence has unfortunately enabled this directive over and over.
There is a different path forward than division forced on all of us by this small group. We are better together.
By stark contrast, the only plan from the Commission not acceptable to this fifteen-year-effort is The One Church Plan, which offers a more traditional ecclesiology that declares we can all be one in Jesus Christ. The One Church Plan is the opposite of what these groups want because it offers a Way Forward for all of us and not just for some, though it falls short for this blogger who supports the Simple Plan. But as the most openly supported option on the table, the One Church Plan interrupts and begins to heal the damage these groups are doing to the church.
Your Turn
Your turn, fellow United Methodist:
- Do you want to reward decades of manipulation to this moment, closing up the largest and greatest big tent in church history to only those that walk the line?
- Or will you choose the messy, problematic path of life together, playing different instruments that somehow end up in a harmony perfect enough for now?
The choice is yours.
Thoughts?
Remember: All of this was just part of the plan.
Thanks for reading, commenting, and sharing on social media. Be sure to send it to your General Conference 2019 delegation.
Great post. I shared it so more people can learn about how these things have been in the works for 15 years.
Great job pulling this together! Thanks for all that you do.
“The conflict we are facing in The United Methodist Church right now is not an accident.” Wow! You got the thesis sentence right, but what follows should be a recounting of the malcontent alt-left’s agenda from the inception of the UMC. That could be done very briefly. Beginning with the case of F. Gene Leggett before there was a UMC. It started with his removal from University Methodist in Austin 1965 (and a key case ruled on by the JC in 1971 and bearing on the 1972 GC addition of restrictive language). From there on at every GC since 1972 on the UMC has gently and graciously reinforced, strengthen, and reiterated, our position on this issue. It has taken place in the face of disruptive, hateful, and mean spirited protest at GC where sessions had to be shut down, communion chalices smashed, and vows proudly broken. Finally, while all legislation about the issue was put on hold in 2016 for a Way Forward, these same malcontents illegally elected a practicing homosexual bishop to thump their noses at the polity/doctrine of the church. Yes, there was an agenda before the birth of the UMC. In response to this you think there should have been no contingency planning as a result?
“Alt-right” is a term made up by Richard Spencer, a neo-Nazi, in order to make white supremacy and fascism more palatable to a broad spectrum. Conversely, this necessitated the creation of a fictional “alt-left” to create a false equivalency between actual fascists and anyone they perceive to be left of them.
In other words, “alt-left” is a myth and inherently fascist language that says more about the person who unironically uses it than anything else.
Thank you, Jeremy, for this good piece of investigative reporting. I’ve downloaded the document and will read it carefully. I am certainly not surprised to see that this exists. As I’ve been saying for quite a while, the Good News folks loved what happened in the SBC in the late 80’s, early 90’s and have obviously sought to follow that pattern.
Well done Jeremy! This is great work. This is not shocking to read the document exists but so helpful to know, going forward.
Did this document result in some part from the IRD? I’ve understood that their goal was to destroy the UMC (and others) as effective advocates for justice and their motives were political, not at all theological. Is that close to what’s in this?
Progressives spend way too much time looking to blame somebody else. The truth is, the seeds of this moment were planted long before most of us were born when church leadership embraced the concept of theological plurality and allowed a “new and improved understanding of Christianity to stand alongside the historic/classical beliefs that have always characterized Methodism. It pays to know your history because it helps us to understand “how we got here”. It took multiple generations of theological confusion for the church to finally get stuck on the issue of sexuality. And being stuck on sexuality is not our only problem. Here is a partial list of what all is truly wrong with The UMC, especially in America:
“The median age of a US member soars toward 60, with clergy exceeding that age, signs of a clearly limited future. Demographics of church location, finances and distribution of resources into survival mode or away from mission essential priorities are filling another compartment. Training, education and deployment of clergy (of whatever official status) remain expensive, complicated and detached from validated requirements essential to produce effective pastors and chaplains. Trust deficits and miscommunication within and beyond the organization beset its membership and hinder effective witness and evangelism. Theology, hobbled by viewpoints not simply diverse but contradictory, pours cold water into the hull. G.K. Chesterton once commented that a universe in which both Roman Catholicism and Christian Science were equally true would be a madhouse. Welcome to the bedlam of UMC Titanic.” https://peopleneedjesus.net/2019/02/03/rms-titanic-vs-umc-titanic-a-happy-ending/
I read the document as descriptive more than prescriptive… so I guess didn’t see anything particularly offensive in there
Only Jeremy, consumed by his intense hatred of theological conservatives could create such a bizarre conspiracy theory. Please folks, do read the document for yourselves; see for yourselves how badly Jeremy has chosen to misrepresent what it says.
Even better, go read the 2004 Abingdon Press book “The Ice Cube is Melting” by Lyle Schaler, a church consultant who was widely respected across the entire theological spectrum, which discusses the issues and conflicts within the UMC and all of the various options for resolving these conflicts. The short 9-page Good News document that Jeremy is trying to claim is a “smoking gun” is essentially just a discussion of the validity and impact of the various options proposed in Schaler’s book in light of the events and outcome of GC2004. But, to Jeremy, facts like these, no matter how interesting, are irrelevant. Trying to spin this as a nefarious conspiratorial “15 year” “blueprint” that the Good News folks have been manipulatively working towards is both silly and sad. But don’t take my word for it, read the document and/or Schaler’s book for yourselves.
Jeremy,
Thank you for your love of the UMC and holding Goodnews accountable. I don’t see any hatred, but guilt perhaps would draw that conclusion. I anticipate GC 2019 will be nothing but a funeral for the UMC as we know it. However, in death, I believe resurrection will prevail with Gods inclusive live for all people.
Thank goodness there were men of foresight who could see the lawlessness our denomination’s minority was willing to impose to create a denomination in their own image rather than one as guided by the Holy Spirit acting through General Conference. If we must split, so be it. You, Jeremy, and Christy Thomas, can continue to demonize us and it will ultimately get you nowhere. There are enough of us who really don’t care what the world or current culture thinks about us, as we have no choice to follow God’s will as revealed in His Holy Scripture. There are enough ministers and Bishops, male and female, of all ethnic backgrounds and Nationalities who are willing to take a stand to enforce our Book of Discipline such that the Disunited Methodist Church will likely end as we know it in its current chaotic form. If it makes you and Rev. Thomas and others like you feel better about where you’ve led the people called Methodist, feel free to continue to demonize those us deemed Traditionalist. It neither affects how we feel about the current status of the Disunited Methodist Church nor how we will seek to live our lives based on our understanding of God’s will for us. Good luck on your faith journey. Perhaps one day you will be enlightened and tolerant enough to wish us luck on ours.
Thank goodness there were men of foresight who could see the lawlessness our denomination’s minority was willing to impose to create a denomination in their own image rather than one as guided by the Holy Spirit acting through General Conference. If we must split, so be it. You, Jeremy, and Christy Thomas, can continue to demonize us and it will ultimately get you nowhere. There are enough of us who really don’t care what the world or current culture thinks about us, as we have no choice but to follow God’s will as revealed in His Holy Scripture. There are enough ministers and Bishops, male and female, of all ethnic backgrounds and Nationalities, who are willing to take a stand to enforce our Book of Discipline such that the Disunited Methodist Church will likely end as we know it in its current chaotic form. If it makes you and Rev. Thomas and others like you feel better about where you’ve led the people called Methodist, feel free to continue to demonize those us deemed Traditionalist. It neither affects how we feel about the current status of the Disunited Methodist Church nor how we will seek to live our lives based on our understanding of God’s will for us. Good luck on your faith journey. Perhaps one day you will be enlightened and tolerant enough to wish us luck on ours.
Seriously? “You” (collectively) are being demonized? What then is the language of exclusion, punishment, ostracizing “you” (again, collectively) employ? And who then, if “you” (yes, collectively) are successful in purging the church of those who allegedly demonize “you”, is next? Women in leadership? Minorities? Non-tithers? How about those who are not able to do or meet whatever the next perfection du jour is?
I loathe two Christian clichés: Love the sinner, hate the sin, and WWJD. The first is impossible as there is not one Christian human alive that can separate the sin from the sinner. The second allows one to speculate on what Christ would do in a given situation with said speculation morphing into what the thinker would have Christ do.
The “demonized” “conservative” Goodnews/WCA approach clearly has Christ throwing the lame, the leper, the prostitute, the tax collector … all the unwanted, can’t pay the price to buy the perfect sacrifice types … out of the temple. “We love them with the love of the Lord, but until they change to meet the requirements of our human grace they find no seat at our table.”
But “you” (the increasingly holier-than-thou) collective hereinabove) are the ones being demonized.
This is why there is an alarm on my phone that goes off everyday at 2:23, that stops whatever I’m in the middle of including conversations with my employer, and why I pray that God intercedes and strips all of us of what we want to think Christ would do, shows us clearly what He wants us to do, and then firmly leads us to and through it.
Jeremy, thank you for keeping things out in the open, for your insight, and for your wisdom. The parallels to the history of the secular politics we’re witnessing today are clear and not surprising when you look back at the ebb and flow of the Christian church throughout history. That history shows that, each time the church leaders tried to bar the doors, revisionists removed the hinges. Thank God for the hinge removers, or not one of us would be where we are today, now would we?
Valerie, I remember reading a while back an African-American actress (if I remember correctly) talking about the “sociopathy of perpetrator as victim mentality.”
Every time I read traditionalists bemoaning how oppressed and demonized they are, I remember her words.
I’ll listen to traditionalists when they start being removed from ministry simply for being traditional. When GC votes to never fund any traditionalist ministries and never allow any official board or agency to do so. When traditionalists get so wrapped up in gaslighting denial that they start self-harming or develop mental illness. When traditionalists get beaten or kicked out of their homes by parents who consider them a shame on the family. When traditionalists get literally murdered just for being traditionalist.
(And even then, the parallel is not entirely apt because being traditionalist is a set of opinions. Those can change. Being gay or trans is not something we have control over.)
It’s taken me decades to just START being comfortable with who I am. And I’ve had to realize that, though the UMC may be my home and family, it’s all-too-often a very abusive one.
I find it extremely disheartening that some people will attack a blogger or others BY NAME but are so cowardly personally that they won’t reveal their own identity.
Yes, I’m referring to you, betsy, Paul W, and John.
Shame on you.
Keith A. Jenkins, Ph.D.
Retired Elder
Texas Annual Conference
The other component of this is the concerted effort by Good News and (and now the WCA) to obfuscate who they actually are and what they actually intend from the average UM member or clergy person. They have long been a political lobbyist group masquerading as a renewal movement. Their leadership knows this, and yet the average Good News or Wesleyan Covenant Association member does not, because they have been intentionally misled as to the nature of the organization they are a part of.
I.e. the recent turn in the WCA narrative, “We are not out to create a new denomination, we just want to renew the church” which then morphs into a bulleted outline on just how they plan to create a new denomination. The average member doesn’t read documents like the one you link and so they have no idea.
I’m sorry if you can’t understand that the reason ministers who follow their oaths to abide by the Book of Discipline and lead their lives accordingly are not stripped of their credentials whereas people who openly ignore and flaunt our BOD, violating the oath they took to abide by our BOD, are subject to church trials and subject to having their credentials revoked. The latter folks lied in taking their oath, the former did not. It’s not that difficult. If your opinions about our BOD require you to defy it, do the honorable thing and resign as a UMC minister and offer your services to a denomination or group that reads God’s word differently. You are of course welcome to sit in the pews of our UMC church with other sinners like me, but persons who violate the oaths they took before God have no place under our BOD as our pastoral leaders. It’s not about just being LGBTQI… it’s applies to heterosexual ministers, male and female, who choose a lifestyle other than marriage to a person of the opposite sex or celibacy. It’s also about credentialed ministers, or worse Bishops, denying the truth of basic Christian Doctrines like Jesus being both man and God, His physical resurrection, the Triune God, God’s undeserved Grace, acceptance of Jesus’ offer of forgiveness but with the admonition to go and sin no more.
I think I proved my point about how so-called Progressives demonize those who don’t agree with their agenda in light of the strong reactions by those sharing that agenda. Apparently only the LGBTQI… have the right to feel their denomination is abandoning them. The Traditionalists just need to shut up and accept their positions on Scripture being condemned as intolerant, not Christ-like, or my favorite, part of a Metho-fascist cult. But seriously, I don’t want you to feel disrespected or indignant, which is why I advocate you going your way and letting folks who believe as I do go ours. I wish you all the best and God’s Grace in your spiritual journey. If it turns out the modified Traditionalist plan does not prevail and folks like me believe we need to leave to stay true to our beliefs, then please let us go peacefully with our houses of worship after we pay our current pension obligations. If the modified Traditionalist plan does prevail and you are true to your beliefs and leave, I will offer the same to you.
You should try and engage with other people in good faith. For example, instead of saying that progressive people “condemn scripture as intolerant,” perhaps you could instead write: “Progressive people interpret the scriptures differently than I do.” You know, like how there’s been a plurality of interpretation since the very beginning of the Church. Guarantee you, this will increase the chances of someone wanting to engage with you. Because, as it stands now, you’re just poisoning the well.
You cannot engage with rule breakers who have clearly shown that their word is no good. There is no point in making deals which will soon be broken. Better to simply walk away.
I know, right? That’s why I tend to avoid engaging with traditionalists who have broken the rules of charity and compassion.
Zzyzx, I don’t believe I said “Progressives condemn Scripture as intolerant.” I believe I said “Progressives” condemn a Traditionalist’s interpretation of Scripture as being intolerant. And I assure you I don’t want to poison “the well.” It’s just if you are honest about the situation, we don’t like the same water and would prefer to each have our own well from which to drink and find spiritual sustenance.
Jeremy,
Thank you for this. There sort of IS a “vast-right wing” conspiracy (a la HRC) in the UMC, as there was/is in American politics, isn’t there? So very disappointing to read this.
Question: how did you come by this document?
Susie Thomas
elder, Louisiana AC
It is prudent to be prepared for future developments in any endeavor. Simply put, if Progressives prevail in 2019, Traditionists will depart. If the Traditional members had failed to anticipate potential changes in the UMC, they would have opened themselves to criticism for that.
I would assume that you and other Progressives also ponder and prepare for future UMC changes (such as departing) and that is totally appropriate. Are you critical of that preparation?
I don’t see Traditionists criticizing your planning, such as departing the UMC, as you do to their planning. This leads me to think you are fixated on criticizing “the others”, exactly what you condemn in them.
Can you please answer this: Why would you want to continue any connection with an institution or people that make you so angry?
Wow! What a bitch it must be to be a UM these days. With all the distrust and recriminations from both sides, it’s a wonder you’d have time build up the church you profess to care so much about. You’re just burning it down.
Friends, I have all along been concerned about the business side of the issues related to the ordination of LBGTQI persons and same gender marriage. I have been “out of it” for a while but since you shared this, I will say this: HOW MUCH MONEY HAS BEEN SPENT ON THE ADVOCACY ON BOTH SIDES? Due to the vision of conference leadership (Mildred Sunshine Cooper), I attended the 1972 General Conference as part of a jurisdictional youth caucus. At that time, there were very few women delegates and no youth delegates. I have also had the privilege of attending the last several general conference sessions. At any time when someone does something to charge a clergyperson or someone on either side is outraged by a decision, we soon would see an appeal letter from all sides asking for money to advocate for one side or the other. So I wonder in my retired life with little status, what would be the state of the UMC if the money spent by Good News, Confessing Movement, RENEW, MFSA, RMN or even now the new WCA had been spent on working for peace, ministry with the poor or spreading spiritual holiness throughout the world? Much more the cost of a called general conference.
Sorry so long. With my recent heart health struggles, I might be channeling the Hundley line a bit. And yes I am a progressive and will advocate for stopping the hurt – all really does mean all.
You might also notice that the Traditionalist plan you are so aghast over IS our book of discipline.