In 2018’s Marvel movie Black Panther, the hyper-advanced but secretive kingdom of Wakanda has two groups vying for power as a new King wants the kingdom to change. One faction wants to turn Wakanda into a war machine, sending its weapons to promote mass uprisings supporting their tribe around the world. The other faction wants to give their technology to the world to better everyone. The movie ends with King T’Challa sharing their technology and power on the world stage, rejecting those who would continue to do war, and creating space for one small nation to transform the world.
This scene serves as a helpful illustration of the primary component of the One Church Plan for The United Methodist Church: realignment. By changing a critical aspect of United Methodism in a straightforward, easy-to-pass way, it creates space for The UMC to become something more than its current state, bettering everyone it touches.
The One Church Plan
The One Church Plan (OCP) attempts to resolve the current impasses over church unity and the inclusion/exclusion of same-gender-loving people by giving annual conferences, congregations, and clergy greater flexibility to make decisions based on individual and communal convictions as well as the needs of specific ministry contexts.
The One Church Plan has the endorsement of substantial majorities of both the Commission on the Way Forward (69% affirmation) and the Council of Bishops (60% affirmation). It is one of two Plans written by the A Way Forward commission (the other is the Connectional Conferences plan, reviewed here), and the only one endorsed by the Council of Bishops for adoption by General Conference 2019.
The following outline examines how the Plan affects each circle of United Methodism. This section was drawn from the legislation and prepared by a third party, with some local editing.
What happens to Local Churches?
- Allowed to decide whether to host same-sex weddings. No congregational vote required unless they want to host them.
- Permitted to indicate whether the congregation is open to receiving LGBTQ clergy or not.
- No provision for “gracious exit” added to Discipline. Churches in disagreement with the OCP can use current processes found in the Book of Discipline.
What happens to Clergy?
- Encouraged to file statements expressing their views on homosexuality, which will be used during the appointment process.
- Free to decide whether they are willing to preside at same-sex weddings or not, based on individual conscience.
- End of trials against clergy for celebrating same-sex weddings.
- Gracious exit permitted for clergy unable to continue serving in the UMC, including provisions for protecting individual pensions.
- Clergy who feel uncomfortable with conference policies and relationships will be supported in transferring to a more compatible conference.
- LGBTQ candidates in the ordination process in a conference that will not ordain them will be supported in transferring to a more compatible conference.
What happens to Annual Conferences?
- No conferences vote on whether to ordain LGBTQ candidates. Instead, annual conferences’ Clergy Sessions will determine whether to permit or forbid such ordinations.
- Annual conferences will use current disciplinary processes to facilitate the transfer/gracious exit of candidates/ordained clergy, as well as congregations seeking to leave United Methodism.
- Restriction maintained on funding “promotion of homosexuality.”
What happens to Bishops?
- Council of Bishops will remain one body rather than splitting.
- Episcopal assignments will be made in a manner that considers each bishop’s convictions as well as the needs of jurisdiction.
- No bishop will be forced to ordain LGBTQ candidates, but s/he will be required to make arrangements for another bishop to fly in and do the ordination.
- The Episcopal Fund will continue to support the salaries and expenses of bishops in the Central Conferences. But GCFA will develop a plan to ensure that each episcopal area in the U.S. covers the costs related to its bishop’s compensation package as well as each area’s apportioned share of the Episcopacy Fund.
What happens to Central Conferences?
- Central Conferences will not have to act contrary to their beliefs and will retain their ability to adapt the Book of Discipline to fit their contexts, including language about human sexuality.
- Same-gender weddings may only be conducted at conferences where the civil law permits them.
What happens to the General Church?
- General Agencies will remain the same and maintain their relationship to all annual conferences, jurisdictions, central conferences, and the general church.
Specific Commentary
Here’s a link to the full plan, starting on page 132. The OneChurch plan is on section pages 10-25. It’s a lot of legalese that is summarized in the previous section, but I do want to draw out three items of note.
First, while the updates on page 20-21 to ¶161.G (Social Principles statement on Human Sexuality) and ¶310.2.d footnote (Qualifications for Ordination) both change “man and woman” to “two adults,” the ¶161.C (Social Principles statement on Marriage) update does not, including “traditionally understood as a union of one man and one woman.” That’s odd to include in our definition of marriage a line that makes same-gender couples second class or “outside the norm.”
Second, when an Annual Conference decides to vote on whether to ordain LGBTQ persons, they do so at Clergy Session. But regardless of the outcome, they cannot revote “for 30 months” (page 24) unless the bishop allows a motion from the Clergy session. So a non-affirming bishop in a non-affirming conference, assuming they vote at AC 2019, would effectively disallow any commissioning, ordination, or appointment of LGBTQ persons until AC 2022. That’s a long time!
Finally, regarding local churches that desire to leave The UMC, in addition to whatever arrangement they work out with their annual conference (which retains its current and final authority in ¶1504, page 25), they must also pay a pro-rated share of their AC’s unfunded pension liability. Finally, churches will pay their fair share, unlike previous churches in Mississippi and other places.
Hacking Christianity (HX) Perspective
There is SUCH a disconnect between the public narrative and the actual content on this plan. After reading the actual legislation, my eyes are opened to the power of spin.
The public narrative has been that this is the “progressive plan” and it “liberalizes our sexual norms.” Maybe it matters whose field you are standing in, but from this progressive’s perspective, the OCP is not a progressive plan. It does not move us forward as a denomination—it simply makes official in our polity what our Church currently practices. It keeps demoralizing statements in our statements on marriage, and it keeps the funding ban in place to keep The UMC from committing resources to LGBTQ ministries. I find little actually “affirming” to LGBTQ persons, and a lot of “allowance” for people to continue to discriminate. What is progressive about that?
So what the plan does is realign The UMC by moving the conversation about LGBTQ inclusion closer to the people than the politics of General Conference. To Central Conferences (who I hear lament each General Conference the amount of time we spend on LGBTQ inclusion), the OCP should alleviate those concerns as the conversation moves from the General Conference level to the annual conference level. We saw that happen in other mainline denominations for a time. Such action will realign the General Conference to different concerns and remove some of the caucus groups’ ability to use LGBTQ persons as scapegoats or wedge issues for other agendas.
So in short, the OCP is not a Progressive Plan, but it is a plan that challenges the lobbying culture model that caucus groups have been banking on for decades. Being honest about the state of the UMC and realigning the conversations at General Conference could be challenging to the norms of politicking. So that’s why realignment is the keyword of the One Church plan, and only the next few months will tell if the narrative holds about it being a “progressive plan” or if the reality will intrude.
As readers of HX will see, the real Progressive Plan will be examined in a few days time. 🙂
Your Turn
Thoughts?
Thanks for reading, commenting, and sharing on social media.
I agree, when I read the one church plan it seems expressly designed to appease traditionalists, adding redundant language protecting the conscience’s of conservative clergy and churches even where it isn’t actually needed. I suspect the folks calling it too progressive would use that label on pretty much anything that isn’t 100% in line with what they want.
Also, have you read the traditionalist plan? It’s about the most mean spirited thing I’ve ever laid eyes on in the church (the Methodist Church anyway). It is needlessly punitive, the language unnecessarily harsh. It seems more designed to thumb a nose at progressives than actually do anything that might benefit our denomination
Hi Jim, yes, that will be tomorrow’s post. It is about as mean-spirited I’ve ever seen a piece of legislation. And it was written by bishops.
This plan does nothing to appease traditionalists. Instead it is designed to force them and our brothers and sisters out of the church. It is completely unacceptable for a person who believes that homosexuality is a sin to be a member of a church that officially endorses it through marriage and ordination. The people who designed it are too intelligent to not understand it and know that the result will be to purge traditionalists and the Africans out. It is simply a stepping stone until full gay inclusion once we are gone. Nobody is being fooled by the title and that is why this plan is DOA as it has been for the last several GC’s. The endorsement by the bishops by the way only hurts as their heavy handed manipulations have created great ill will among traditionalists and foreign bishops. And yes we represent a clear majority of the church.
This is truly turns it to a political issue rather than a spiritual issue. I am saddened by how this issue continues to divide the church. For me, it is focusing on Jesus and His commandments to us if there is ever to be a true healing.
Get politics out of the church! The issue is not one of political opinion. Two questions properly answered is all that is necessary moving forward. Is the Bible God’s inspired word and therefore without error? If the answer to that is NO; then the Church has no redeeming value. If the answer is YES; then should be about teaching and preaching that in all congregations by ALL; especially clergy? If clergy is not under that conviction, they should not be in the pulpit. The great commission is about winning the lost to a saving acceptance of Jesus Christ. Sin separates us from salvation; therefore the sin must be confessed and God’s forgiveness assured. If sin is to be confessed, the individual seeking forgiveness; and therefore salvation, must know what acts, actions and belief is sin. We in the church must impart that knowledge; don’t leave it to the unsaved, who is without guidance of the Holy Spirit, to make that determination.
Will the 2020 conference resolve the issue? Not a chance. When those persons, who will be making the decision about the spiritual health of the church, are more concerned about the financial health of the retirement plan, preacher salaries and winning an argument, that should not be happening, there is no plan that is right.
It’s a sad time to be a Methodist. Why can’t we simply love on another.
We can love and respect each other–just not in the same church because you do not understand my beliefs and I do not understand yours. We have two totally different understandings of what it means to be a Christian of the Methodist/Wesleyan persuasion. For the church to be effective, the other the theological battle is going to end. The only question is, who is going to leave? If the One Church plan is put in place, it will be me because I am tired of a church mired down in conflicting and contradictory theology that leaves it saying anything in particular.
Thanks for your analysis. Leaving the exclusion language in the BOD will force me out.
At our Annual Conference this year, the theme was “We Love All God’s Children.” It doesn’t seem true.
It is true. Problem is your version of what it means to love God’s children and my version are completely different.
Hi Betsy. If your version of loving God’s children includes attempts at praying-away-the-gay and asking people to be other than their beautifully God created selves, I’d suggest that perhaps you don’t understand what it means to love. All homophobic and transphobic policies result in violence and discrimination for LGBTQIA+ children and adults. Even if you aren’t doing this with your very own hands, your words, actions, and support of this oppressive system mean you are culpable nonetheless. And that ain’t love.
You wrote words that she never said and called her homophobic. False witness and name calling. That is a clear example of unloving behavior.
i have a prediction. As soon as the “progressives” prevail on the main issues of homosexuality in the church, they will move to their next project that requires UMC members to refer to our Lord in a feminine form- essentially, changing the “sex” of God. We will then be required to praise and pay homage to “Goddess”, because referring to God in the masculine makes some people uncomfortable…and Lord knows we have to make those “progressives” comfortable, right?
So what do you do with verses such as Isaiah 66:13, Deuteronomy 32:18, Luke 13:34, or Romans 8:22 (among others) that use feminine imagery for God?
Or the creation story where “Male AND Female” God created them in God’s own likeness?
Why does God “have” to be masculine? What’s at stake theologically by this position?
God does not “have” to be masculine or feminine. God created everything, including gender, so is not one or the other.
However, God the Son, Jesus Christ, refers to God the Father using masculine grammatical gender. Given that our goal, as Christians, should be to be as Christlike as we can, we follow the example of our Lord and likewise refer to the first person of the Trinity as Father and use masculine pronouns.
Jesus referred to God as father because he was steeped in a patriarchal culture that viewed women as property owned by their fathers, brothers and husbands. Nevertheless, the bible abounds in feminine images of God. Just as we are fighting to leave behind patriarchal ways of treating women, so too should we fight to leave behind patriarchal ways of imaging God. Insisting on male pronouns for the ineffable Divine Creator is idolatrous, in my view, because it limits God to male images and denies the abundant feminine images of God in the bible. Does this male God you envision have a penis, testes and sperm? How does that work if God is unembodied Spirit? Why is it so important to you that the ineffable Divine Creator be male? As one feminist theologian famously stated, “If God is male then the male is God.” Humankind has dedicated a lot of its history to creating God in its own image. Since men rule our human world, we humans insist that a man must rule the Divine world as well. But such male-centric views of God simply reinforce the false notion that being male is inherently superior to being female, that it is more God-like to be male than to be female. Yet the bible clearly states that both male and female are made in God’s image. If that is true, them God must encompass both masculine and feminine qualities and must be beyond the limiting human notion of gender.
Jesus, as the second person within the triune godhead, referred to the first person as “Father” because the eternal relationship between the two is like that unto a father and son (or parent and child, if you will), and it is both the nature of that interrelationship that he sought to communicate to humanity as well as our own proper posture before the God who created us. Father and Holy Spirit are unquestionably noncorporeal beings without human gender (with characteristics that we apply to both human genders), but there’s simply no arguing the instrinsic maleness of the Son. Yes, he walked among us with penis, testes, and sperm. Unless Jesus was only human and not divine, or “gave up” his divinity in the incarnation (the kenoticist heresy), he was not bound by time, culture, or any other aspect of the created world; though he lived among us in the midst of, as you put it, a “patriarchal” culture, his knowledge and understanding was not limited to it but transcended it. Certainly the One through whom all things were created can stand outside that which he created.
Teresa proves herself not to be a Christian. Teresa, why are you commenting on this? This is a conversation between Christians.
I’m sorry. This made me laugh. Are you serious? I hope not. I’m going to take it as sarcasm.
Thanks, Jeremy. Just a question about implications for Central Conferences. You write that “Central Conferences will not have to act contrary to their beliefs and will retain their ability to adapt the Book of Discipline to fit their contexts …”. What about local congregations, clergy and annual conferences in the Central Conferences”? Do they get the same options as in Jurisdictional Conferences?
Basically I share your view that OCP is not a progressive plan. However, I still consider it better than (or not as bad as) the traditionalist plan. It may be the only way to go considering that we are a global church working in so many different cultural and political contexts.
Churches in Africa do not have a choice same sex marriage is illegal ,im not sure about homosexuality but it may be as well.
Will this lead to lots of fighting in local churches about what is”right”? I am just a church member, not ordained ……
I agree that there should be a One Church Plan, but I have a different suggestion for a source to set up rules and regulations for it. Yes, it will need rules and regulations just as any organization does. Here’s where I split company with the plan as stated. Who will make the rules? Who should make the rules?
If you answered that the Council of Bishops, local churches, Annual Conferences, or any other groups of men (I consider myself a part of mankind–I’m as feminine as they come and believe that God created no one in a “weird” way), you are wrong, wrong, wrong as can be. If anyone other than the one true and living God makes them, it is a No Church Plan.
That’s what you suggest here. It is not a One Church but a No Church Plan. You may develop a group or a club or some kind of organization that follows your criteria. But it will not be a church.
The only one to set up a church is God.
We should not consider the Discipline as our strong authority. Our authority comes from the Scriptures set down in God’s Holy Written Word by His Living Word through the power of His Holy Spirit. God has already said much on the subject. Read it for yourself. Then take time to compare any written authority you wish on any subject thahas been adapted by the UMC as it applies to homosexuality or any other subject. He left nothing out. Read it for yourself.
Amen!
Suggestion: Seek those you wish to include. Present the uncompromised (not politically correct) Gospel to them. See them through to salvation. Baptize them into the fellowship of believers and encourage them to take their message to others after they are God’s children.
There is a saying that a skunk by any other name smells just as bad.
Onechurch In other words, DO what is right in your own eyes.
Another sign of the end times.
Hello to every body, it’s my first pay a quick visit of this website; this web site carries remarkable and genuinely excellent
material for visitors.
I know this site gives quality based content
and extra material, is there any other site which gives these kinds of information in quality?
Good article! We will be linking to this great post on our site.
Keep up the great writing.
Not included in this discussion is the reality of intersex, the fact that some humans are born with characteristics including chromosomes, gonads, sex hormones, or genitals that, according to the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, “do not fit the typical definitions for male or female bodies.” Sometimes the confusion is evident at birth. For others, it shows up later in life. There was a day when it was left up to doctors to determine which sex the newborn would be when the gender of the newborn was uncertain. Now it is more likely left to the parents or even to the child to decide later in life. If gender confusion can exist physically, how much more likely for there to be confusion psychologically. Considering that every human being possesses a mixture of those qualities we define as masculine and feminine, how sad it is that the so many in the United Methodist Church seek to reduce the nature of sexuality to a simple one or the other instead of honoring the wonderful mystery of human sexuality that the creator has blessed us with.