With the plethora of proposals to change the United Methodist Church, which ones actually have a chance at success? Take a read on two criteria that I think will define the most viable options–and one criteria that will doom them all.
Two criteria for change
Having attended three General Conferences (as an advocate), served on a team that wrote major general church legislation, and being somewhat well-versed in our general church polity, I think there are two criteria by which a denominational unity/schism plan could be deemed “viable.”
- It must be doable without constitutional amendments and substantially change the UMC polity within our current constitutional framework.
- If it must be done with a constitutional amendment, then it must include a moratorium on trials of clergy persons who are LGBT or who officiate same-gender unions.
Here’s why those two criteria are important.
First, we already tried a constitutional amendment in 2008 to help the global church become more equitable. The forces against LGBT inclusion burned it down. The message war (on either side) would be enough to overcome the very high bar of 2/3 of the annual conference membership. So a constitutional amendment is unlikely to pass. That means any plan that doesn’t require constitutional changes has a higher likelihood of passing General Conference and becoming church law.
Second, even if an amendment and plan did come up with viability, it wouldn’t be applicable until 2021 at the earliest. We just ratified the Constitutional Amendments from the 2012 General Conference last week at the Council of Bishops. So anything in 2016 wouldn’t be ratified until 2018. Then the new legislation (that hinge on those changes) would need to pass the 2020 General Conference and would apply January 1st, 2021. A long time, right? Right. Our polity resists reactions that substantially change the tenor of the entire denomination. It enables cooler heads to have time to speak and more eyes to look at the changes.
Thus for at least 5 years after GC2016, we would be a church in transition and a church in transition needs to lay down its arms. Hence why a moratorium would be necessary–and indeed, it would be more honest to have a moratorium since that’s how many annual conferences are operating these days anyway.
So by our estimation here at Hacking Christianity, any plan for unity (or schism) requires the two criteria above.
How do the current plans fare?
By these criteria, how do the current crop of plans fare?
- A Way Forward requires no constitutional amendments and substantially changes the structure within our current polity. PASS.
- The Jurisdictional Solution requires constitutional amendments and has no language for cessation of trials. FAIL.
- The A&W plan requires no constitutional amendments but doesn’t substantially change the polity: it is more of the same. FAIL (indeed, it is the most openly hostile to LGBT persons/allies and opens the door for megachurches to leave the UMC scot-free).
- The recent United Methodist Centrist Movement requires constitutional amendments and calls for a moratorium on clergy trials. PASS (to nitpick, the language offered is “all trials,” and that would need to be changed because we need some trials)
- Almost all plans offered on the 4000 member United Methodist Clergy Facebook group require constitutional amendments, but none I’ve seen allow for a moratorium on clergy trials. FAIL.
- Finally, any plan for official schism or dissolution of the United Methodist Church would require significant hurdles above even constitutional amendments and thus would be even less viable. FAIL.
In short, only AWF and UMCM offer viable paths to change in the United Methodist Church. Little wonder both those plans are subject to the biggest critiques by those who are proposing or supporting the most harmful plan yet.
Are the big ideas all for naught?
The truth is that every evaluator of the plans for unity or schism within the UMC need to be consistent as to what they are using to measure each plan. By applying two clear criteria above, I believe it helps us see what is viable and what can be perfected with more effectiveness than the others. While some may claim that I’ve tilted the criteria and thus have a self-fulfilling prophecy–which could be true–I’m honest about my criteria, have the data to back it up, and would like others to be as open.
However, all may be for naught for those seeking the path with constitutional amendments. The biggest hurdle those would have to clear is that one side would unilaterally reject any moratorium of church trials or cessation of hostilities against LGBT persons. It is clear that any “budge” or any “allowance” would be met with abject rejection, either based on “allowing sin” or personal/regional positioning or simple covenant beliefs. This is the Via Vindicta whereby the path to unity requires vengeance to those who violate our purity polity.
In summary, while the most viable proposals would need to require a moratorium on particular trials, such a requirement conflicts with certain segments of United Methodism’s refusal to budge .0001% on this topic for any minute of time, which could derail any process that needs a constitutional amendment. Unless the reasonable solutions overcome this bloodlust, all this oddly puts “A Way Forward” as still the most viable plan for unity with diversity in the United Methodist Church (even the Schismatics admit it). And could it be?
Timeline: January 2016
With the variety of proposed legislation likely due in January 2016, my hope is that any future plans coming in the next 15 months take seriously the above criteria and seek to work within our current polity or to propose constitutional amendments that include moratoriums on clergy trials as related to LGBT identity and same-gender marriage. We need either to work within our own polity, or to offer a breathing space to give time for something new to come in–if only we can lay down our arms long enough for it to be so.
I believe we can.
Thoughts?
Jeremy,
Do you think A Way Forward, and a Jurisdictional Solution could co-exist? Or stated another way… If A Way Forward took the sexuality pressure off, could a Jurisdictional Solution move forward to deal with the larger organizational problems of moving out of our colonial system to a world-wide church with regional flavors?
I think they could co-exist reasonably well, and perhaps that’s what happens: AWF passes for 2016-2020 while we come up with a novel solution waiting for the Constitutional Amendments. I know for many people, relieving the pressure would be either a welcome relief or a step back away from justice.
That said, I would oppose the Jurisdictional Solution. I don’t see gerrymandered tracts across America as connectional as regionalism. And it’s odd that, in the words of a friend, one jurisdiction is the “we like gay people” one, and one is a body formed around the exclusion of some people from the body of Christ.
I think this is fun to talk about, strategize, and kibbutz over. But reality will creep in soon than any plan of action. All of these plans are 90-95% clergy-driven, and by a small minority. The vast majority, as well as millions of laity, are (1) not really impressed, and further (2) think we clergy are folks who couldn’t make it in American politics. Their #1 concern? Discipleship. Their #2? Youth involvement. Sexual orientation /same-sex marriage is #8, a “most important issue” to about 11%. I won’t make a value judgment or theological critique of that – it simply is what it is. While we try to make something work, we will have fewer and fewer people attending and funding what we envision. Where there is no vision – and no resources – the people parish. We don’t even need that much money if we can let go of what we’ve been accustomed to having. But we do need people.
At best it is *speculation* which plan would make change – this assumes that there is a UMC to change by then. If you take a conservative look at our decline and resources, we will no longer be able to sustain ourselves in about 16-20 years. Some conference somewhere will say, “We can’t pay our apportionments anymore.” And they won’t – and the bluff will be called. Our stance/fight/disagreement/moratoria on church trials will mean very little.
We do “restarts” on local churches; maybe we do on to the UMC, and do what Lyle Schaller suggested in The Ice Cube Is Melting_. Next General Conference, on the first day: name the fact that we are more like an association of churches rather than a Connection, that some differences are irreconcilable, and pray and mourn over that. On the second day, vote on a proposal to dissolve the United Methodist Church that morning. If that passes, then create a new denominational structure. No restrictive rules. Keep the Articles of Religion. Avoid the firewalls that currently keep a 1970’s structure in place (that wasn’t working anyway) for a 21st century church. Let the UMC’ers outside of the UMC fend for themselves (maybe they’ll be better off).
If that fails, maybe we adopt a “Plan I”… since it seems that we may be destined to do whatever “I” wants anyway. We are dysfunctional beyond description. I don’t know if we are receptive to intervention from the Holy Spirit or not.
Sky, your suggestion is essentially what I proposed to pre-bishop Gary Mueller after the 2012 General Conference. In summary, I proposed that we open the 2016 General Conference with a motion to dissolve the UMC and adjourn in order to then reconvene as a Constitutional Convention with a plan to reconstitute the denomination from scratch, keeping the Articles of Religion and the Wesley Standard Sermons and Notes as our Doctrinal core and NOTHING else being held over. By setting aside the current Discipline, with its Constitution, in its entirety we avoid the pitfalls of the Restrictive Rules, which are even more difficult to address than simple Constitutional Amendments.
“We clergy are folks who couldn’t make it in American politics.” Gee, I don’t know. That bar is set pretty low.
Hilarious Freudian slip! Thanks for the chuckle…
UMC’ers outside of the US, I should have said.
We speak about cessation of clergy trials like it is something we can do with the wave of a hand. Not so. Trials are listed as a central constitutional right of our system of clergy accountability. Changing this would require suspending a Restrictive Rule in our constitution, which necessitates a 75% vote at General Conference AND ratification by 75% cumulative vote of all annual conferences. I know we are talking about suspending trials for same-sex weddings only, but the judicial council would shoot that duck before it ever started to land. The most direct route to this would be to de-list conducting same sex weddings as a chargeable offense, but that has all the baggage of any progressive agenda facing general conference. Another thought… I am not so sure the local option would not have constitutional ramifications. Even if a plan does not call for constitutional change it still has to pass constitutional muster. Thanks for your thought-provoking posts.
As I indicated in the linked critique above on the UMCM proposal, trials are indeed really important and we do a disservice to their purpose when we use them only for one violation that will not stand the test of time. Here’s that article: Trials and Misconduct within the United Methodist Church
If there are constitutional changes required for the A Way Forward, I haven’t seen anyone point them out. If so, I’ll update the post.
I also don’t see anywhere that “A Way Forward” calls for a halt to trials. They want to leave the BOD language in place, which includes chargeable offenses. The plan implies it can somehow be enacted without General Conference action, but this claim seems dubious at best. I didn’t say constitutional changes were required for “A Way Forward”, but, like all other plans, it would have to pass constitutional muster with the Judicial Council.
Again, the argument is that if a proposal requires constitutional changes, then it should include a moratorium on specific trials as we live into that interim time between proposals. Since AWF–so far understood–doesn’t include constitutional changes, then it doesn’t fall under the #2 criteria above and it doesn’t have to include a moratorium.
As a member of the UMCM, I want to thank “Hacking Christianity” for their assessment of the UMCM platform. The core of the UMCM appreciates all the discussion, affirmation, and critiques of our platform. In fact we invite all to get involved in our conversation because we are pragmatists who love effective local churches in all of their various shapes and sizes, not ideologues who deal solely in absolutes. This is a WORKING document and we are excited about many of the suggestions (and more confident in our position after some pushback) since we uploaded our website (http://umcm.today). There is much we want to continue to discuss, which in no particular order would include, but aren’t limited to:
– some sort of modified version of the “jurisdictional plan” or the “Anglican plan”
– a regional plan that requires a majority vote in each region before the Discipline can be changed
– world service fund distribution based on membership/worship attendance numbers
– term limits for bishops designed to bring greater accountability to their decision-making
– a more open itinerant process that still takes into account the need for “missional appointments” that may not be all that popular
– a re-examination of what “moratorium on trials” looks like exactly
We’re interested in further conversation on all of these items, and others, with anybody. And we want to work with everyone who like us, believe in the cause of the continued unity of the United Methodist Church.
What we were trying to get to from the outset of this conversation was the idea that it would be “the center”, made up of clergy and lay people globally, who would have to lead the 90+% of us who believe we are much stronger together than we are divided. The “all or nothing” crowds have forgotten the strength of this denomination: we have a “Quadrilateral” which along with “scripture”, “tradition”, and “experience”, also includes “reason”. In an age when the world is changing so quickly, walking this out together – not in lockstep, but mutually, each at our own pace, challenging some to “slow down” and others to “catch up” – isn’t just necessary in keeping us together… it’s necessary to advance the cause of the Kingdom of Heaven in every corner of this planet we share.
So we’d encourage you, if you haven’t done so, to come check out our webpage or Facebook page, and join the conversation. And even better, start to organize in your own conferences, centrists who whether they are “right”, “left”, or “center”, don’t believe that the future of the denomination rises and falls solely on the issue of homosexuality (which quite frankly, has dominated our conversation too long). Join us if your hope is effective local churches of every different “type” and “stripe”, making disciples who really can change this ever-changing world. Thanks again “Hacking Christianity” for the “shout out”.
I like this summary. Looks like a good Analysis of Alternatives (AOA). Let’s find a math geek to put a gaming scenario together and try and predict what will actually happen. My prediction is that we will continue on the path to chaos.
I think a video game would be better.
Jeremy, your criteria strike me as a combination of your pragmatic/political opinion and your desires as a progressive. Someone with a different pragmatic or political opinion could argue with criterion #1. You might be right; I don’t know. Someone with a different theological conviction will naturally argue with criterion #2, and could just as easily make up their own criterion in mirror image. In your essay you anticipate those objections and dismiss them by coining the phrase “the way of vengeance.” That is not consensus building, but simply more of the same, lobbing rhetorical grenades across the divide. Having disciplined boundaries about sexual behavior for clergy does not equal “hostilities” against anyone; it’s something the Church has always done. Having liturgical boundaries around what constitutes marriage does not equal “hostilities” against anyone. Having doctrine, discipline, and accountability up to and including removal from positions of authority does not equal “vengeance” against anyone. But these false equivalencies are stated and repeated over and over until it gets tiring to take issue with them.
All of these boundaries can be changed by legitimate processes in the church! If they are wrong, if God is leading us in a different direction, God will show us that by changing the hearts and minds of those with the authority to change our doctrine according to the constitution of our church. God established this church and God is still leading us, however much we get in the way, however much it doesn’t look like it. If you want other people to obey the rules that you like, and you want the organization to stay together, then you have to be ok with enforcement of the rules which are in place. If you want a free-for-all, then you may as well start talking your own schism plans.
Mr. Lambert, you say “If they [the “boundaries” or rules set up in the UMC to regulate behavior and respond to violations of those rules] are wrong, if God is leading us in a different direction, God will show us that by changing the hearts and minds of those with the authority to change our doctrine according to the constitution of our church.” I would question this assertion on two points.
First, it denies the existence of human free will and that will’s ability to resist God. It suggests that God can and does “change hearts and minds” whether we are willing or not. If this were the case, then we would not be able to look back upon 2,000 years of the Church’s history that is often steeped in darkness and sin.
Second, it is a position that inherently supports the status quo by means of a fallacy that goes something like this: “If God disapproved of what we’re doing, God would change our hearts and minds. Therefore, if God does not change our hearts and minds, God must approve of what we’re doing.” I guess that’s fine, as long as one likes the status quo.
Have you considered the possibility that God IS trying to tell us to change, but we just aren’t listening because we’re stubborn, willful humans?
Rev. Lambert (to give you the office not awarded to you by Keith :-)), I was open in the first paragraph of the third section that I made the criteria and gave data why I made them. To accuse me of opinion and desires is to accuse me of something I’ve already admitted–what it doesn’t do is undermine the argument that those two criteria are highly important and I would say, the basic need for viability.
Your writing is nice, but it misses the thrust of the paragraph about moratoriums: they are seen by some as very bad because they let people get by with “bad behavior.” Nowhere am I claiming that disciplined boundaries, liturgical boundaries, accountability, and especially trials themselves are bad. That’s taking the argument in the opposite direction. The entire section is arguing that some will oppose any moratoriums or “laying down of arms” out of a need for people who violate the Discipline to be punished and to stop. If you have counter-evidence that such desires do not exist, I would like to see that.
We do have legitimate processes and that’s what I’m lifting up: considering our legitimate processes, which of these has the highest likelihood to not “pass” but to truly “unify” us for the longterm or at least the interim. I don’t see anything above about how to violate the process; if so, please point it out to me.
Thanks for your engagement with this topic, regardless of how much I disagree with it.
One solution would be to let the UMC stand as it is in doctrine, polity, and constitution. The Restrictive Rules were meant for times like this! There is mention of being a pragmatic group and so I offer what I believe is a practical and logical solution. Those who want to create a denomination that is different from the existing UMC would be free to go forth and do so. It seems that this would actually be easier then “restructuring” an existing denomination. No anger, no bitterness, but an honest “I can’t live under these rules any longer and will find the place where I can.” There would be, as mentioned, a time of grieving which would be natural but how much grief is already being generated in the current conflict? If one of the concerns for this option is pension loss, could that not be more easily addressed than rebuilding an entire denomination. Why should the UMC change to accommodate those who don’t like what it historically and currently stands for and they vowed to uphold? Can you be in covenant relationship with someone who won’t keep the covenant they have already made?
Let’s think about this….
We need to pivot and insist that marriage needs to be a civil matter and that our clergy of all types cannot act for the state. We should bless persons in relationships.
When we do funerals we do not declare persons deceased. That is a civil matter we provide spiritual care and hope. The same is true of divorce, and care for the children and now single parents.
I write as a clergywoman with a doctorate in practical theology. I have seen congregations move from taking a strong stance against homosexuality, to being quiet about it, to wondering and thinking aloud. This has happened as society has become more accepting and as those in the pews find family members, friends and/or neighbors being more open about their sexuality. The strong stances melt in the face of reality. I have a certain amount of confidence in the ‘people in the pews’ and their conviction in the love of ‘God’ and a gradual understanding of how to live that out in our time and place. Change takes time and creates delight for some and anxiety for others.
Addressing sexuality is much larger than controlling who someone shares his/her body and life with. We continue to think and speak of ‘God’ as masculine – nearly every reference in our scriptures and traditions refers to the divine in terms of ‘Lord’, ‘Father’, ‘He’ leading our congregations to experience ‘God’ as we experience the masculine. This makes us all complicit in the denigration and abuse of women. This re-enforces the prevalent idea that to be a woman is ‘less than’ being a man. We need to expand our images of the Holy One whose name is beyond all names. I believe these two issues are very intertwined.
I shutter at the need to legalize all of this in a denomination that took its lead from Suzanna Wesley and her sons, whose theology is contained in “Love Divine, All Loves Excelling”.
Thanks for the concise, thought provoking post! I did not realize that any changes would take so long to implement. While it is good to be thoughtful and discerning in any and all changes for the UMC, I am very concerned about where we will be by 2021! While we are trying to find ways to work within the rules we set for ourselves so long ago, society continues to rapidly consider us (meaning the UMC) less relevant to their lives. The version of the UMC that we are offering is less appealing to millenials each year that passes without change regarding LGBT inclusion. I am concerned that the General Conference will be the people that are sitting around trying to decide if the world is flat while everyone else watches and says, “Yeah, it’s round. We’ve known that for a while.” I’m not talking about a popularity contest. I am talking about a spiritual awakening that has been occurring and is being ignored by the General Conference. People are growing and changing and it is an exciting time! I just hope the UMC is there to be a part of it, because it is happening right now. NOW.
Thanks for your comment, Rosie. I also think that we need to reclaim the purpose of General Conference and turn it outward instead of polishing the purity rings that we are currently using it for.
As usual, the only valid perspective is Jeremy’s because he says so. Trials are bad unless they are for issues that Jeremy feels strongly about. Since Jeremy has a zero percent chance to become the Grand High Poobah of The UMC, we need to have another way to answer these questions. How else do you determine that other than a majority vote of General Conference? It would be great if people learned from the lessons of 2008 and 2012 that making grand proposals to change our ordination standards whether openly or by stealth that are opposed by the vast majority of the rank and file membership are simply doomed to failure. Whether you consider it “right” or “wrong,” the vast majority of the global membership of The UMC is opposed to changing our ordination standards. When for one side it is an issue of “justice” and for the other it is an issue of “doctrine,” then you aren’t going to get “agree to disagree” either. Sky is right that most people in The UMC don’t consider this a major issue but that is because they agree with the status quo in the Book of Discipline. A local option (even if it could be made workable), would bare all of those divisions to no good effect.
Releasing the trust clause probably would be a good idea as long as previous unmet obligations or benefits received are refunded to the annual conference.
We should eliminate the Episcopal Fund for active bishops in the USA and have each episcopal area responsible for funding its own bishop and their travel and other expenses.
“A vast majority of the rank and file membership” and the “vast majority of the global membership of the UMC” raises a concern for me, a millennial. See, the Pew studies and the wonderful book, “The Next America” (also from Pew studies) reflect that 68% of millennials surveyed support same sex unions. Sixty-eight percent! Obviously, that’s in America. Of course I understand you were referencing the global UMC. But, where is the UMC’s presence for that 68%? A “vast majority” of the voting delegates does not necessarily reflect the reality of who will be funding this wonderful denomination in the coming decades. I would certainly be concerned if that 68% wasn’t a part of the future of the UMC.
Rosie,
A vast majority favors background checks before gun purchases. But, most of them do not make voting decisions primarily on that criterion.
How many of those 68% darken the door of any church even the Episcopalians or the United Church of Christ which have had gay clergy for years?
The real issue isn’t whether everyone does something (or multiple somethings) every day that is contrary to Christian teaching. We all do. The real issue isn’t whether or not we are all persons of sacred worth in need of grace. We all are. The real issue isn’t even whether our clergy will conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies or not. There are very, very few conducted in the real world so whether we do or not is not a major issue whether in the USA or globally to impact the ability of people who want to get married to get married.
The real issue is that there are a number of gay, non-celibate ordained clergy who wish to serve openly and retain their salaries and benefits despite not being truthful during their ordination vows and violating the Discipline every day since. It is highly likely that there are far more clergy on “Side A” than there are churches ready, willing and able to accept a clergyperson from “Side A.” So, what happens to those churches? Are they simply told to “deal with it”? Those are the difficult questions that revisionists like Jeremy don’t answer.
In reference to Creed’s belief that very, very few same-sex marriages are conducted in the real world, I am a United Church of Christ pastor (formerly UMC, Asbury Seminary grad) who has conducted numerous same-sex weddings in the past few years. Several were for members of the congregation I serve, and many were from the wider community. Several were through United Methodist connections, with some referred to me by UMC clergy and others by members of the UMC hierarchy who had a pastoral concern for UM members. To state that this is a miniscule issue that has no real relevance in the real world or in the UMC shows a pretty significant lack of awareness or unwillingness to see things as they are.