Moments after PlanUMC passed on the floor of General Conference 2012, Rev. Wm. Scott Campbell was recognized and called for a declaratory decision by the Judicial Council on its constitutionality.  The motion passed easily. A few days later, the Judicial Council issued Decision 1210 which voided the PlanUMC as unconstitutional. Boom!

As expected, after General Conference, lots of accusations of judicial activism and overreach of the ecclesial courts’ voiding of the restructure plan were bounced around. The main essay I’ve seen was the previous post by Lonnie Brooks, one of the architects of PlanB and PlanUMC.

The following is a counterpoint to the essay by Brooks, written by the same Rev. Wm. Scott Campbell (New England Elder, Pastor of Harvard-Epworth UMC in Cambridge, MA). He wrote it in response to HackingChristianity’s request, and we have Rev. Campbell’s permission to repost it below.

Though this exchange may be mostly interesting only to United Methodist polity nerds (you know who you are), it provides insight into the fundamental differences over the governance models that reflect Methodist doctrine…and the ones that do not.

Read and enjoy!

=====

A Response to
POLITY PERSPECTIVE…by Lonnie D. Brooks

by Rev. Wm. Scott Campbell

I appreciate the careful and thoughtful response to JC 1210 by Lonnie Brooks.  As one of the architects of both Plan B and Plan UMC, I know that he had a great deal of personal investment in each of these plans, and the fact that his response is so measured is a testimony to his love for the United Methodist Church and its polity.  I do, however, differ with his take on the decision at several key junctures.

The Process

Before I discuss the specifics of the decision, though, I would like to offer a few general observations about the process of creating the restructuring proposals that were put before the church.  Because the initial IOT (Call to Action) plan was developed the way it was, the entire church was put under enormous strain.  The legislation for the IOT plan was sprung on the church with less than a month to go before the General Conference deadline for submitting legislation.  This came after the plan was, according to some, railroaded through the Connectional Table in a July meeting.  MFSA attempted to hastily assemble a legislative response and, later, the Plan B folks offered an alternative of their own.  The last minute nature of the IOT plan, however, precluded what is absolutely necessary for any restructuring plan to be successful in the current environment—a broad-based collaboration and buy-in from many diverse constituencies.  All of the plans, including the MFSA plan, were developed by relatively small groups of people working under incredible time pressures.  Nowhere was this more apparent than in the shaping of Plan UMC.  The fact that none of the plans was ever submitted to the Judicial Council for constitutional review illustrates my point.

Second, the insistence of the developers of all of the plans (with the exception of the MFSA plan) on proportional representation in the composition of the governing structures creates trust issues.  It shifts the issue from what is best for the church to who will call the shots.  It is further interesting to me that proportional representation is always discussed in terms of membership and never in terms of per capita giving to the general church—where the Southeastern Jurisdiction ranks last in the US, trailing the Western Jurisdiction by some 33%.  This focus reinforces that idea that the primary issue is control rather than coordination.

Finally, Lonnie is technically correct when he asserts that Plan UMC incorporated MFSA’s concern that the General Commission on Religion and Race (GCORR) and The General Commission on the Status and Role of Women (COSROW) report directly to the General Conference.  What he does not say is that MFSA wanted these bodies to continue to have their independent status.  While MFSA would not have opposed the combining of their functions into a common commission, MFSA believed it was critical for both bodies to maintain their autonomy.  Their incorporation within the General Council for Strategy and Oversight (GCSO) was never a part of MFSA’s vision.

The Decision

It seems to me that Lonnie is unclear about two fundamental problems with Plan UMC.  Let me address them one at a time.

First, he has not accurately stated the nature of the oversight that Plan UMC intended for the GCSO.  When he states that the General Council on Finance and Administration (GCFA) has already been delegated the power to withhold funds from boards and agencies, he neglects to tell us under what conditions such withholding can occur.  His statement that … this is simply a restatement of authority already in place with the General Council on Finance and Administration is misleading at best.  GCFA can only withhold funding when an agency violates policies clearly articulated by the General Conference relating to discriminatory practices, financial impropriety, or specific policies and procedures adopted by the General Conference (e.g. expending funds that could be construed to be promoting the acceptance of homosexuality.)  The only other circumstance in which GCFA can withhold funding is if it determines that a particular initiative duplicates something already being done by another body in the church.

Yes, the General Conference does delegate the authority to GCFA to monitor compliance of the Boards and Agencies with particular policies and procedures clearly articulated by the General Conference.  It does not give GCFA the authority to make subjective judgments about the effectiveness of the agencies and to withhold funding on the basis of such opinions.  That is precisely the power that the GCSO would have under plan UMC.  This is a whole new level of authority that no body in the church has ever had before, save the General Conference.  It is this kind of control that the Judicial Council removed from the General Council on Ministries in Decision 364 in 1973.  Their ruling in the current situation is consistent with precedent.

Second, Lonnie’s insistence that “facilitate and coordinate” is synonymous with “oversight” strains credulity.  In fact, if either the Plan UMC designers or the Plan B authors had been willing to understand the role of the GCSO in terms of facilitating and coordinating, there would not have been a problem.  Instead, under Plan UMC, this body would have the right to hire and fire General Secretaries of agencies; it would be authorized to evaluate the work of the boards and agencies and to withhold funding based upon the results of their evaluation; and it would have the authority to assign duties to other bodies, in particular the General Secretaries Committee (see line 582).  This latter function is in direct contradiction to Lonnie’s insistence that No such authority was provided in Plan UMC to the GCSO.  The issue for the Judicial Council was not that the GCSO would facilitate and coordinate the work of the agencies.  It is already clear that the Connectional Table (CT) is authorized to do that, and there has been no constitutional issue with the CT.  The problem identified by the Judicial Council, correctly in my opinion, was that oversight in Plan UMC was a far more invasive concept than the plain use of the words “facilitate and coordinate” would convey.

A Final Thought

There are many lessons to be learned by what has transpired over the last eight months in relation to restructuring the church.  Perhaps none is more important than the need for any plan to be carefully developed by a broad constituency of diverse voices over a reasonable period of time.  Further, for any plan to be successful, it is going to have to be crystal clear to the church at large that the issue is coordination of ministry and not the consolidation of power.  One way to do that is to begin the conversation by asking what voices we need at the table, not by insisting on the right of certain constituencies to be over-represented.  We have four years to do this right.  Let’s learn from our mistakes and move forward together.

Scott Campbell
May 16, 2012

=====

Thoughts?

Thanks to Scott Campbell for allowing us to post this article!

Short background: PlanUMC passed on the floor of General Conference 2012. It was immediatly referred to the Judicial Council (the court for the UMC). A few days later, the Judicial Council issued Decision 1210 which voided the PlanUMC as unconstitutional. Boom!

Ever since then, there’s been some accusations that the Judicial Council was wrong in their decision. August among the responses is an essay by Lonnie Brooks, one of the architects of PlanUMC (and PlanB as well). I saw this essay posted on Rev. Andy Langford’s blog in response to commenters questioning Langford’s criticism of the Judicial Council decision.

I cannot find this article in full anywhere online to link to it, so I’m posting it whole-hog below (If this is a problem, contact me and I’ll remove it). 

Immediately following this post will be a post by Scott Campbell that provides a counterpoint to Brooks’ essay.

Though this exchange may be mostly interesting only to United Methodist polity nerds (you know who you are), it provides insight into the fundamental differences over the governance models that reflect Methodist doctrine…and the ones that do not.

Enjoy the discussion!

=====

POLITY PERSPECTIVE ON
JUDICIAL COUNCIL DECISION 1210

By Lonnie D. Brooks

I don’t need to recount for you in detail the torturous process by which at General Conference 2012 we arrived at its closing hours struggling to understand the impact of Judicial Council Decision 1210 which struck down the plan for the restructuring of the general agencies of The United Methodist Church. By now that has resounded throughout the Church, at least among those who care about the Church as it exists connectionally.

But briefly to summarize, after the General Administration Legislative Committee had failed to decide on any plan for restructure, advocates of two competing plans—the plan proposed by the Connectional Table upon the recommendation of the Interim Operations Team and the alternative plan called Plan B—worked together for two days to craft a compromise plan using elements from each of the plans, also including elements from the plan put forward by the Methodist Federation for Social Action. Two important elements of the MFSA plan that were included based upon conversations earlier conducted between representatives of MFSA and Plan B were inclusion of representatives of the five recognized racial and ethnic caucuses in membership on the Council for Strategy and Oversight and independent reporting to General Conference for the monitoring function of the Committee on Inclusiveness.

That compromise plan became known as Plan UMC, it was presented to General Conference, and, with one amendment increasing significantly Central Conference representation on the remaining general agencies, on Wednesday morning, 02May12, it was adopted by General Conference by an overwhelming vote of 567 to 384, a 60% majority, which in the United States Senate would be strong enough support to break a filibuster. (Daily Christian Advocate, page 2639, last line on page.)

On Friday, 04May12, the Judicial Council announced its decision that “Plan UMC is unconstitutional,” further saying that it is “constitutionally unsalvageable.” (JCD 1210) By that latter finding, the Judicial Council meant that it could not declare parts of the legislation unconstitutional and other parts in compliance with the Constitution, but simply was striking down the entire package. That was an astounding act of the Judicial Council, without precedent for so wide ranging a piece of legislation. One must go all the way back to October, 1972, to find anything similar when in JCD 364 the Judicial Council struck down a portion of the legislation creating the General Council on Ministries. An important difference between the two cases is that in 1972, the act creating the GCOM was left to stand, and only the portion of its powers decided by the Judicial Council to be legislative in nature was struck down. And in that case, there was a strong dissenting opinion by two of the members who claimed the delegated powers were not legislative since all actions of the GCOM had to be consistent with decisions and decrees of the General Conference. Moreover, the Judicial Council had refused to decide the case in the heat of the action of General Conference, but postponed its decision until the fall session so it could study the issues involved, listening to the arguments on all sides of the matter.

There were two constitutional principles that the Judicial Council says were violated by Plan UMC, and they each deserve scrutiny. First, JCD 1210 says that General Conference “legislative functions may not be delegated” The functions at issue are, “the creation and establishment of general Church boards and agencies, the fixing of their structure, the determination of their functions, duties and responsibilities, and the establishing of Church priorities” which “are legislative functions reserved to the General Conference alone.”

The second constitutional principle that the Judicial Council says was violated by Plan UMC was that “the Constitution authorizes the Council of Bishops to bear the responsibility for general oversight.” It went further to say the following:

The constitutional authority of the Council of Bishops cannot be compromised or modified by legislative enactments. As ¶ 47 (Article III) of the Constitution provides: The council shall meet at least once a year and plan for the general oversight and promotion of the temporal and spiritual interests of the entire Church and for carrying into effect the rules, regulations, and responsibilities prescribed and enjoined by the General Conference…

By far, the more important principle, in my judgment, is the latter one concerning the oversight authority of the bishops, as seen against the back drop of Methodist history and our own Constitution and current polity. So, I’ll save my analysis of that until later in this essay.

Delegation of Legislative Authority

That is not to say that the first principle of the delegation of legislative authority is unimportant. It is simply that the Judicial Council has misunderstood in total what Plan UMC does and does not do. I find it hard to believe, in fact, that the Council was even reading its own writing, because Plan UMC did not give to the General Council for Strategy and Oversight (GCSO) any of the authority that the Council says was in violation of the Constitution.

Look at the first example from the legislation that the Council has cited:

The General Council for Strategy and Oversight oversight responsibility shall include the authority for consolidation of administrative services to the extent practicable for all general church activities into the appropriate agency on a fee for service basis as it affects agencies receiving general church funds. (Amendment of ¶ 901.4, DCA p. 2552)

That provision is on Lines 446 to 449 of the DCA citation. This calls for the consolidation of administrative services, not of program responsibilities. And in the digest of the decision, the Council has acknowledged that General Conference does have authority to delegate its administrative power, where it says:

The Constitution limits the General Conference in the authority it may delegate to the boards and agencies it creates. This authority is limited to the work of promotion and administration.

The second instance the Council cites to support its claim that General Conference has attempted to delegate its legislative authority is equally mysterious, and its conclusion simply does not follow from the citation. Here is what the Council said:

…the General Council on Strategy and Oversight:… may direct the General Council on Finance and Administration to withhold funding for any programs and activities until the GCSO determines that the responsible general agency has achieved, or identified means satisfactorily to achieve, the established outcomes. [This is a quotation from Lines 507 to 510 of Plan UMC as it was printed in the DCA of Tuesday, May 1, 2012.]

This provision unconstitutionally delegates the authority of the General Conference for “distributing funds necessary to carry on the work of the Church” to the General Council on Strategy and Oversight, contrary to ¶ 16.9.

First and foremost, there is no delegation of authority to the GCSO to distribute or redistribute funds budgeted by General Conference. There is a delegation of authority to withhold funds until a recalcitrant agency has complied with requirements established by General Conference and policies set by the agency’s own board of directors in compliance with the mandates established for it by General Conference. Moreover, this is simply a restatement of authority already in place with the General Council on Finance and Administration. In multiple places in the Book of Discipline GCFA is already provided with authority to withhold funds when an agency does not comply with policy: ¶¶806.12.c)(2), 807.13.b), 811.1, 811.2 are four examples where this authority has already been delegated by General Conference. Authority to withhold funds is not authority to redirect funds. Withheld funds will revert to the general fund if the agency never comes into compliance, and such funds would be available for budgeting by a future General Conference, but not by the GCSO or by GCFA.

And finally, on the topic of delegation of legislative authority, the Council said that General Conference may not delegate its authority over boards and agencies for, “the fixing of their structure, the determination of their functions, duties and responsibilities, and the establishing of Church priorities.” Yet the Council has not provided one single example of where such a delegation has occurred. The very good reason for that is that there is none. No such authority was provided in Plan UMC to the GCSO. All the mandates for all the surviving agencies in Plan UMC are left in place in the Book of Discipline. All the priorities are established by General Conference, and each agency’s board of directors works within those priorities to direct the work of each agency.

Oversight Responsibility of the Council of Bishops

The far more important principle that the Judicial Council says is violated by Plan UMC is the principle of oversight. The Council said, “In ¶ 47, the Constitution authorizes the Council of Bishops to bear the responsibility for general oversight.” It quoted from ¶47, which says, “The council shall meet at least once a year and plan for the general oversight and promotion of the temporal and spiritual interests of the entire Church and for carrying into effect the rules, regulations, and responsibilities prescribed and enjoined by the General Conference…”

That does not address the question of whether or not authority for “general oversight,” which is given to the Council of Bishops, excludes the possibility that General Conference may give authority to another body of the Church for specific instances of oversight over particular ministries. It certainly does not preclude the possibility that oversight in particular instances is a shared responsibility. Nor does it preclude the agency boards from administrative oversight of the mandates of General Conference assigned to each agency.

It is extremely important to take note of the fact that the authority for oversight that is given to the Council of Bishops is not unmodified, which means it is not unlimited. The authority is for general oversight. This is parallel to the power given to the federal government in the United States Constitution to “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” Authority to provide for the general welfare of the United States has never been interpreted to mean that state and local governments are prohibited from establishing structures intended to deliver services for the welfare of their people. Thus the State of Alaska has its Department of Environmental Conservation, its Department of Natural Resources, its Department of Health and Social Services, and so on through a whole gamut of departments, each intended to provide for specific instances of the welfare of the people of Alaska, none of which powers encroach on the authority of the Congress of the United States to provide for the general welfare.

There is such overlap explicitly within the United Methodist Constitution itself. ¶47, already cited, says, “The council shall meet at least once a year and plan for the general oversight and promotion of the temporal and spiritual interests of the entire Church…” where I have added emphasis to the word “promotion.” Please also look at ¶16.8, which gives authority to General Conference to establish boards and agencies: “To initiate and to direct all connectional enterprises of the Church and to provide boards for their promotion and administration.” The same word, “promotion,” is used in that provision for the power of the agencies as was provided to the bishops. The promotion of the interests of the Church is now, and always has been, a shared responsibility that is not exclusive to the Council of Bishops.

In fact, the connectional structure of the Church is replete with examples of where General Conference has done precisely that and established structures for sharing that responsibility. The General Board of Church and Society has been empowered with overseeing the work of other agencies in pursuing their legislative agenda. ¶1004 says, “The Board shall facilitate and coordinate the legislative advocacy activities in the United States Congress of other general agencies of The United Methodist Church that receive General Church funds.” Please note that the phrase “facilitate and coordinate” is synonymous with “oversight” in this instance. In defining the work of the General Board of Discipleship ¶1109.1 says the following:

¶ 1109. Christian Education—1. The board shall have general oversight of the educational interests of the Church as directed by the General Conference. The board shall be responsible for the development of a clear statement of the biblical and theological foundations of Christian education, consistent with the doctrines of The United Methodist Church and the mission of the board. The board shall devote itself to strengthening and extending the teaching ministry of the Church through research; testing new approaches, methods, and resources; evaluation; and consultation. [Emphasis Added]

In ¶1204, the Division on Ministries with Young People has authority “to determine and interpret program directions that support its mandate.”

In ¶1303.3 the General Board of Global Ministries is given the following authority:

The board shall facilitate and coordinate the program relationships of other program agencies of The United Methodist Church with churches and agencies in nations other than the United States.

In ¶1405.10 the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry is given the following authority:

To recruit, endorse, and provide general oversight of United Methodist ordained ministers, including persons who speak languages in addition to English, who desire to serve as chaplains in specialized institutional ministry settings in both private and governmental sectors. [Emphasis Added]

This list is not exhaustive, but representative of the shared nature of oversight authority in our Church. It was not intended that the general oversight authority provided in the Constitution to the bishops be considered to be exclusive of any oversight responsibility that might be assigned by General Conference to other bodies of the Church for particular ministries or the administration of General Conference.

======

Thoughts? See the counterpoint by Scott Campbell and respond either here or there.

I finally got around to watching the Season Two finale of The Walking Dead, a post-apocalyptic series on AMC that deals with a world where Zombies have taken over and humans run, hide, and fortify to survive. It’s bloody and violent but has really interesting ethical twists…kinda like a much grosser LOST for me.

Anyway, given it has been two months, I figure anyone that would see it has seen it, but just in case, this is a spoiler alert. Okay? Okay. Let’s go.

continue reading..

I couldn’t stop smiling after seeing this image so…here you go.

(h/t friend on Facebook)

One of the new initiatives that I’m involved with is DreamUMC, a social media-fueled conversation among young and young-ish adults about the future of the United Methodist Church. It’s a response to the exclusion of young adult voices from the Call To Action process during the past two years and a commitment to include Young People from the get-go on a grassroots initiative not ran by anyone on any committee or board.

There’s a tweet-up on May 14th with young and youngish people to share their reflections and revelations after General Conference. We hope to share many stories via twitter tag #dreamumc and the conversations will be super-easy to follow.

Here’s how to join and follow the conversation. Two suggested methods: Basic and Pro

Basic – Tweetchat

• If you haven’t already, create a twitter account at www.twitter.com. Pick a username (may take a few tries to get a unique one) and enter your email address and you are done.
• Go to www.tweetchat.com and click “Sign In.” It will ask you to “authorize” Tweetchat to access your account, click Authorize (it can’t see your password and is an approved service).
• Enter in #dreamumc into the “hashtag to follow” field at the top of the screen and hit GO
• You are IN! Now you will see streaming in all the updates with the hashtag on them. Also, whenever you post something in the box, the hashtag will automatically be added. Play around with it but you will be able to follow the conversation.
• Now, just login to tweetchat at 9pm EST on May 14th to join the conversation!

Pro – Tweetdeck

• If you haven’t already, Create a twitter account at www.twitter.com. Pick a username (may take a few tries to get a unique one) and enter your email address and you are done.
• Go to www.tweetdeck.com and install the desktop client (Mac or PC) or the Chrome app (I’m using the Chrome app and it is boss)
• Register with tweetdeck.com, then launch the program. It will ask you to “authorize” Tweetdeck to access your account, click Authorize (it can see your password but it is an official Twitter service…they have your password anyway).
• You should see the three columns. Sweet, right? Click “Add Column” at the top. Click on “Search” and enter in #dreamumc into the search field at the top of the screen and hit enter.
• You are IN! Now you will see streaming in all the updates with the hashtag on them. Unlike Tweetchat, whenever you post something using the blue feather button, the hashtag will not automatically be added…you will have to add it yourself. Play around with it but you will be able to follow the conversation.
• Now, just start up Tweetdeck at 9pm EST on May 14th to join the conversation!

If you have any questions, feel free to follow me on Twitter or follow the official DreamUMC account and I’ll try to help you out.

See you then!

General Conference Update!

We still have an opportunity for reform. Each of the General agencies put out restructuring plans. That can be found in the ACDA section under General Agencies. Each one of the General Agencies submitted their own restructuring plan (except GBCS) that tightened their focus and cut down on their board members. These have been studied, translated, and have received the full light of day. It does put the GCCUIC under the council of bishops. Let’s still do something.

The petition numbers are: 20042-50, 20056, 20072, 20073, 20103, 20112, 20114, 20115, 20120, 20123, 20243-20245, 20257-20265, 20319, 20323, 20325, 20326, 20342, 20345, 20346, 20376-20378, 20380-20383, 20391-20393, 21085.Please pass this on to all the delegates you know. We have till 7:30 to get the word out.

Here’s the Petitions: General Administration

I’m presently sitting in the airport.  Distraught.

Shoulda stayed. I should have stayed at General Conference.

I can see the Convention center from my waiting area window and know people there are fighting for their lives, to be seen as more than their sexual selves, to be women and in charge of their bodies, to be youth that are empowered not disenfranchised, and most of all, good delegates who make unpopular decisions in their delegations.

I doubt I ever will be on the other side of the bar.

Anyway.

Tomorrow? I get to take a dozen church children on an end-of-school-year trip. My last major program with these kids, most of whom I’ve known for my three years at my church. I won’t have another program with them as I’m moving out of town.

Tomorrow? My mind and ministry goes on in my church, my eyes and ears will be facilitating the children’s experience, but my heart? It aches with every tweet from Tampa. But I won’t stop reading. So don’t stop doing and writing and being and voting and protesting and praying and serving and eating and, rarely, sleeping. I don’t want to miss a thang.

Blessings and more writings tomorrow evening, and a whole slew of things prepped for the coming weeks.

A recap for those of us just tuning in: The General Conference of the United Methodist Church is in session and considering a major restructure plan. No, not that one. And no, not that one. Another one.

How We Got Here

On Saturday night, the Committee tasked with this Restructure voted down the measure that had been debated and agreed upon after 3 days of work (due mainly to sabotage by the IOT/PlanB folks who wanted to take their balls and go home). They then voted down the pure unedited forms of PlanB, MFSA, and the IOT plans. Everything. Nothing left the committee as a recommended path.

So on Sunday, members of the IOT and the PlanB people got together in a marathon meeting starting at 4pm and still without a compromise measure by 9pm. The groups’ participants included Don Underwood (who supported the CT plan) and Christine Dodson (who supported the PlanB plan) and Central Conference delegates and…oh yeah, no one from MFSA even though they could have easily been invited. Sam Hodges’ article at UMReporter says “while no MFSA representative participated, there were negotiators who had backed the MFSA plan.” In other words, they wrote the ‘compromise’ measure including 3/4 of the active groups (only one of which wrote actual legislation in the ADCA) and they excluded the young adults who were the majority of MFSA representatives. So calling it a compromise is a bit loose.

On Monday, apparently a plan had been brokered and was given to the General Conference for printing in the daily publication of legislation. Then no copies were distributed. No delegates or press or bishops or anyone was able to have an additional 12 hours to read. This conference is full of back-room deals and exclusion of the young adults and central conferences from the adults table. It is just ridiculous.

But let’s stop grousing about the past (though we will return to this) and look at the plan ahead of us.

The Plan

Above the text is the plan for the governing body of the UMC (mobile users click here), called the General Council for Strategy and Oversight.

Some thoughts on the Executive Board:

• It is a 45 member executive board with a focus on vital congregations (meaning that their primary mission would be to ensure that all activities benefit the local church). That is the expressed acrostic for how the local churches are doing. I wonder how UMCOR would fare under that consideration, given their disaster-response focus…
• There will be seven seats for the Central Conferences, far less (numerically and proportionally) than the MFSA plan or the amended PlanB plan which was hashed out in committee.
• There is only one bishop but the potential for eight bishops (as the Central Conference reps could all be bishops, under this plan…and the Council of Bishops could also appoint a CC bishop).
• The “influence” of MFSA is seen in the inclusion of the five ethnic caucuses all having a seat and vote at the table. Yea team!
• Six votes for the SEJ is an inbalance of power and proportionality unseen yet in the United Methodist Church. I know the SEJ is always annoyed that they have to “give up a delegate or two” to the lowly mission fields, but seriously. This reflects Whittemore’s statement in the General Administration subcommittee that “competence should be represented” but negates the need for the mission fields of United Methodism to have any voice of consequence at the tale.

Process or Product?

There’s a lot I like above. It reduces board size while keeping us from too much centralization. It merges GCORR and COSROW (which I’m told is what GCORR wants to happen EDIT: bad info sorry, that is not true). It raises Central Conference voice (in everything but fiscal matters) in many ways. It includes the ethnic caucuses with voice and vote.

The thing is, even if I 100% liked the product, I am appalled at the process it went through. The original Call To Action process was flawed, with questionable voting and discussion of voting from the start. At General Conference, the IOT members checked out of the perfecting of the church proposal so they could swoop in and try to get their original amended proposal done. The PlanB folks checked out when they were being outvoted by MFSA and Central Conference delegates. And when this whole shebang was put together, the young adults were completely excluded from the conversation. As I’ve said before, this process shows that we want to be in ministry TO young people, not WITH. Finally, the utter lack of Central Conference voices or participation in analysis of the issue is deafening and disheartening

I refuse to give consent to a product that had a flawed process. Like any local church, the process of determining decisions is just as important as the product. The Global church should be the same way. The “ends justify the means” mentality has never worked for me, and indeed I criticize my own issue-advocacy friends for that tendency as well.

I hate to say it (because I supported a plan that was rejected and now I risk sounding petulant), but I’m now firmly on the side of “no reform this year.” The process was too flawed, the people too pigheaded, and the politics too whitewashing for this plan to be acceptable to the conduct and polity of the United Methodist Church. We have scared the General Agencies who are inefficient that they have a ticking clock to clean house or get taken out. We have an emerging young adult voice who have gotten involved and will not be disenfranchised. We have a renewed energy for the church to be better, and the tools to do it right next tme. And even Lovett Weems says we can wait for years before we are really in trouble…is it worth risking the 2 cents of every dollar that goes in the church offering plates to do the process right?

I’ve always been a champion of an equitable plan to reorganize the UMC. I believed in that plan and I believed that the structure needed to be changed. But not like this. Not in this way. And even if my plan had won out to be considered in its entirety, if done in this process…I would be voting against it. And you can ask my friends and congregation if they believe I would be consistent like that. I am just not in that place after seeing the Sausage Factory in its rawest form (and this is my third GC), and I doubt I’ll ever be the same.

Process > Product is a renewed mantra of this Elder in the United Methodist Church.

Final Recommendations

Who may choose to support PlanUMC:

• people in favor of random change. I’m serious, it may be okay to have a different model of governance and representation just to see what happens.
• people who appreciate processes that exclude young adults from the bargaining table and hold back information so that debate and analysis would be minimal.
• people who are honestly concerned about the fiscal state of the UMC and will do anything to lower the costs.
• and, honestly, people who so buy into the Call To Action’s insistence that the church will fall apart unless these things pass.
• And many others who honestly believe restructure is necessary and that this, though imperfect, is a good start. I have met many young adults who fall into this category, and I do not critique their decisions, though I find them myopic of the process.

Who may choose not to support PlanUMC

• people who are fearful of an executive board who can hire and fire program agency heads rather than their own evaluative boards.
• people who appreciate the independent boards without a central authority who controls the purse strings.
• people who appreciate the truly independent monitoring functions of GCORR/COSROW (though that is not all they do).
• Mostly, people who appreciate that the United Methodist Church is about the method not just the results, the process not just the product. Any process that excludes voices, ramrods reforms, and limits information and debate to actual General Conference delegates, no matter how great it is, is not a good product. And it should be voted down to send a message to the leadership: this is not the United Methodist way.

Your Action Items

• If you are a delegate, now is the time to get the 20 signatures to remove the specific board reorganizations that you were hoping for. Women’s Division, GBGM, everyone that wrote their own reorganizational plan…get it into discussion because change may not be likely this year..
• If you are not a delegate, get this blog post and tomorrow’s Neighbor News (the GC publication by the Common Witness Coalition) into the hands of delegates. It’s important work and regardless of their leanings, helpful reading. So far as I can tell, it’s the only chart available as well.

This is not the United Methodist Way, even if the product is agreeable to you. I hope Delegates will join me in expressing their UMC values of equity and fairness in process as well as product by voting down the PlanUMC.

Thoughts?

One of my friends sat in the General Administration committee this past week, which is the committee responsible for the bulk of the Call To Action legislation (the global church restructuring). He emailed out his reflections that I’m posting below with permission. This is from a young clergyperson in the North Central Jurisdiction.

========

I walked around a little dazed last night after the conclusion of the General Administrative legislative section. Working with the Love Your Neighbor Coalition, I had sat through each and every moment of the committee’s work, including the structure sub-committee. I watched how despite all of the pressure brought by the Connectional Table leadership and the Council of Bishops, the restructuring proposal in the end could only get 25 votes (to prevent substitution). After hours of pain staking committee work, after a successful melding of Plan B with principals of the Methodist Federation for Social Action (MFSA) plan, I had had real hope that we would adopt a new way of organizing that provided for more accountability while greatly increasing the influence of the Central Conferences in the life of the church.

Then the last two hours happened. Admittedly, it was somewhat insane to have to present the amended restructuring plan to the full committee with only 2 hours left. But, honestly, it seemed few were even willing to listen to the work that had been done. The first motion was simply to ignore all the committee work and to revert to plan B. Not to understand better, not to tweak, but simply to dismiss. Then finally, the plan for which so much work was given died a parliamentary death.

Suddenly, the Connectional Table machine whirred back into life. They sprang forth with new handouts, new graphs and charts. A powerpoint presentation the just happened to be available with 30 seconds notice. I suppose one could argue it was resurrection, but I would argue it was a Zombie that just wouldn’t die. Indeed by the end of the night, it was ruled that the plan was indeed dead, always dead, we were just confused by parliamentary jujitsu and the still warm, twitching carcass of the plan.

As I sat there, angry by the events, someone behind asked just what did I have against the “new” Call to Action plan. To be honest, in those emotional moments I couldn’t give her much of an answer. I was more fixated on the whole winning and losing aspect of the debate. I was just a little stunned.

Having had a night to sleep and meditate on all that happened, I’m better able to articulate why the Call to Action reform plan leaves such a bitter taste in my mouth. I simply have a fundamentally different model of leadership then that proposed by the Connectional Table.

Let’s look at the process: when it came to restructuring the church, the Connectional Table folks did attempt to listen. I believe that is what they were trying to do with the mounds of research presented. Having listened in some fashion, a smaller group went and crafted a proposal that put real power in the hands of few. They saw this as a feature- not a bug. The church wasn’t moving forward because power, the ability to change course, was too spread out. So power needed to be consolidated. So they formed a plan. And they started the PR. They talked at us constantly about how great the proposal was. [Editor's note: the term "talked at us" is completely appropriate and not a typo]

Many didn’t quite buy the PR and sought to put their own plan together. So a new MFSA plan emerged and later a “Plan B” came forward. Each represented a reaction to the crisis at hand, but each reflected different values. Behind the scenes, Plan B and MFSA entered into serious negotiations to try and find common ground. Much was accomplished. The few areas of disagreement (representation of Central Conferences, independence of monitoring functions, Connectional Table) were left to work out in the committee. The authors of both plans listened, sat at the table and sought to find common ground. The Connectional Table folks, however, would have none of that. They simply had no desire to negotiate. They were too busy putting together the flashy presentations and twisting arms to sit down at the table and really try and find common ground. Sure, they tweaked their plan based on the blowback of their PR blitz, but they never wanted to offer anyone else a seat at the table.

After losing a key vote, the Connectional Table folks simply checked out. Their three delegates who sat on the subcommittee abstained from nearly every vote. Why bother to try and legitimately work to perfect this plan? After all, they were working behind the scenes to craft their own. Why sit at the table of the sub-committee, one with people from each plan at the table, one with six central conference members, one with three US ethnic minorities, to try and get us on the right path? Because that’s simply not the way they do leadership. Leadership, for the CT, is working out the details in a smoke filled room rather than at a public table where all forms of diversity are welcome. Leadership, for them, is behind the scenes crafting rather than inviting all to the table. Leadership, for them, is worrying far more about the flashy presentation than true dialogue and consensus building.

So, in an epic night of parliamentary intrigue, all of the plans died. The CT plan. The Plan B. The MFSA plan. The perfected Plan B. Dead. Buried. Destroyed.

Sure, some things are going to be resurrected on the floor next week. Some zombie plan is going to come and try to rule over us all. The CT may indeed get their plan through. And if they do, we’ll be in a church largely of their making.

• One where a powerful few will listen, but ultimately they’ll decide.
• One where a powerful few will talk at you, but not with you.
• One where only a powerful few are welcome at the table; the rest of us just will have to anxiously wait to be told what is good for us.

This is the church I believe they want. It may indeed be the church we get. But please don’t tell me its a church filled with life.

Long live the zombie church. Perhaps only Christ can bring resurrection to it now.

Jared Littleton is a provisional elder in the East Ohio conference. He is working at General Conference as a legislative monitor for the Love Your Neighbor Coalition. He is hoping that his mild concerns with the Connectional Table (that his bishop chairs) doesn’t make his next appointment in Siberia.

======

Thoughts?

One of my projects leading up to General Conference is the ALERT, a collection of United Methodist values that a group I’m affiliated with feels is threatened by the church restructure: either by its effects or by the focus on the restructure that draws energy from other initiatives.

I hope you read it and discuss. This publication was mailed to General Conference delegates and about 2000 have been distributed at GC itself.

• Mainstream United Methodists Main Page
• ALERT 2 article permalink