The Spin Cycle
Earlier this week, all the United Methodist lights went up on the Indianapolis Plan, a plan for the future of The United Methodist Church. And they have a common theme:
From UMNS:
“The drafters of the Indianapolis Plan include pastors of churches that are affiliated with Reconciling Ministries Network, which advocates for full LGBTQ inclusion. Along with [WCA President Keith] Boyette, the Rev. Tom Lambrecht — vice president and general manager of Good News — represents the traditionalist perspective.”
From the Wesleyan Covenant Association:
“Centrists, Progressives, and Traditionalists Work Toward a Fair Plan of Separation.”
From Good News:
“a group of diverse leaders from across the UM Church recently gathered in Indianapolis to explore whether a different and more hopeful narrative might emerge.”
Gosh, all these reports seem to indicate this was a jointly crafted plan, sunshine and puppy dogs between Traditionalists and Progressives and Centrists—and really isn’t that great? Gee, anyone who opposes this miraculous deal must be just a hater…
…But the reality does not match the marketing.
A Well-Meaning But Stilted Gathering
All three articles allege that the Indianapolis Plan was created jointly between Progressives, Centrists, and Traditionalists. That turns out to be a deceptive claim.
Here’s the endorsers. Among the conservatives involved were the WCA chairperson and the Good News Vice President (two major leaders of their perspective), and a WCA Leadership Council attorney and GC delegate (Nicklas). The moderates involved were centrist folks (here’s one reflection), and the progressives involved were…well…not equivalent caucus group leaders of progressive movements. No offense to them and their terrific local ministries, but their involvement in global ecclesial politics is not equivalent to the Traditionalists.
Indeed, the Executive Director of Reconciling Ministries Network spoke out that she did not participate (“The group included no LGBTQ people or LGBTQ justice caucus leaders at its inception”), and the ED of MFSA did not participate, and neither said someone was there on their behalf. No Queer Clergy Caucus or UMForward involvement either. There are dozens of present board members of those organizations that could have participated. This mixture of movement leaders and local leaders (who have unequal levels of accountability—at least two had potential employment considerations) makes the document very stilted
I wonder why this unequal room happened. It’s like when Fox News interviews someone who is giving a Democratic perspective, but they are not Democratic leaders on equivalent level to their Republican opponent who is at the top of their chain. The purpose is to overwhelming privilege one perspective, regardless of the quality of the opponent. An interesting comparison.
In short, the claim that the Indianapolis Plan is the scion of the three movements in United Methodism is not an accurate claim: while involving people from various perspectives, they did not represent or hold accountability to their movements in the same way.
Fact Check Update: Rev. Darren Cushman Wood writes about the composition of the group here. While it was already acknowledged above that RMN withdrew and declined to participate, I’m relieved that the progressives who did participate tried everything they could to involve movement leaders with equal accountability to the Traditionalists. The end result is still problematic, but the responsibility for that doesn’t lie with the Traditionalists.
Indianapolis Author Compiler Reveals Concerns
There’s also the claim that this plan crafted jointly in the Indianapolis conversations. However, that’s also not the case.
Over a month ago, I received a copy of a plan called “The Direct Plan,” authored by Good News Vice President Rev. Tom Lambrecht. The included email said it was his work (“I have been working diligently on a summary proposal”) that incorporates some of the Indianapolis conversation along with other Traditionalist agenda items—I’m sure other Traditionalists had a hand in its creation. The draft plan was dated July 5th, 2019.
NOTE (responding to comments): No, I don’t name my sources. Given my established status as a UMC commentator and vast connections over the past 12 years of writing, various UMC documents like these end up in my inbox and I hold off on publishing about them out of respect for their effort (I had Bard-Jones for six weeks before its publication at UMNS!) and to fact-check. But now that it is out in the open, I can write about it.
Lo and behold, when you compare the July 5th draft document with the August 8th document, they are 95% the same in content—not in rhetoric, but the principles 1-20 match the document word for word in many places!
What this tells me is that right out of the gate from the Indianapolis conversation, the Traditionalists had a plan and the remainder of the conversations and negotiations were about getting Centrists and Progressives to put their name on it, not “shared crafting.”
Fact Check Update: Rev. Darren Cushman Wood gives more of the process here. As I previously claimed, this document includes some jointly crafted pieces from the initial Indianapolis conversation along with some agenda items that were brought by Lambrecht into the draft document. While the bulk of the document appears to be jointly crafted—which matches the media narrative more than i previously questioned—there were enough alarm bells from the agenda items woven into it by Lambrecht (or others) that concern about their inclusion is still necessary.
Why Name The Author?
Ever since the Traditionalist Plan was proposed without naming its authors, and given it catastrophic effect, it is important to name and give accountability to plans before us.
Namelessness is not Wesleyan.
This namelessness means there has been no accountability for the authors of a failed Traditionalist Plan that has cost our agencies millions of dollars and our churches thousands of members and tarnished our brand as anti-gay beyond repair.
The Indianapolis Plan was a WCA plan that is being marketed and masked as a joint venture. Naming the truth gives better accountability.
The Hidden Knives in the Plan
Okay, so that’s cutting through the spin. But there are TRULY problematic proposed ideas that are in the draft that have not been publicly revealed yet if they are in the final version of the Indianapolis Plan.
Those draft July 2019 provisions include:
- General Church assets would be divided 50/50 between the Traditionalist and Centrist/Progressive expressions. Regardless of size, 50/50 split of the resources. That’s what they mean by “binding arbitration” in the published Principles. I have extensive commentary on this one, but I’ll save it for a future post, so I’ll add a single sentence: it is unconscionable for an Expression that for decades has voted to defund (and withheld apportionments) to the general agencies to now lay claim to their reserve funds. Unbelievable.
- The majority vote for an annual conference to affiliate with an expression includes a requirement that they poll every member in their annual conference churches for their opinion (which is non-binding, but still influential). This end-run around representative democracy to straight populism will be found in various places.
- Any group of churches that choose to go a different expression from their annual conference would get a cut of their AC’s reserve funds unless the annual conference’s equalization members were elected/randomly selected instead of nominated or chosen. Again, the end-run around representative democracy practices in United Methodism, and a negation of annual conference that designate some equalization seats for youth, young adults, or persons of color. Certainly telling!
- The draft document includes a moratorium on complaints and disciplinary proceedings related to LGBTQ+ exclusion—the final document does not. Interesting. Is that even too lenient for the conservatives?
- Finally, the draft document indicates some form of Constitutional Conferences for 2022 for the various Expressions. However, once each side has been constituted, there’s no guarantee they will actually do what they say: once they have become autonomous entities and have gotten their cut of shared assets in the bank, they can revoke or sever connections at will. The WCA’s professed idyllic fantasy of a shared future, of neighbors waving from the same neighborhood, is not a sure thing.
There’s more, but I’ll stop there. Again, we don’t know the details or the legislation of the document yet, so we don’t know what made it from the draft to the final. But given the rest of it did, the likelihood of these problematic twists of the knife is high as Traditionalists are masters at embedding spiteful polity (see the Wespath legislation debacle). We need to see the actual final proposal to ensure these efforts did not make the final version.
Fact check update: Rev. Wood wrote here that the provisions that I critique are definitely not included in the final version, though it is still in draft form. I’m glad this public scrutiny of potentially problematic pieces is being considered by these final drafters.
The reality
There’s a lot to like about the Indianapolis Plan on the surface. I’m all about progressives, centrists, and traditionalists getting together and crafting things together. That hasn’t worked in the past because progressives are intentionally cut out of the conversations (for example, conservative reformers kept progressives out of the crafting of PlanUMC in 2012 despite their substantial contributions). I’m all about it happening in a mutual, power-shareable way.
My critique is the same I had for the Commission on A Way Forward: When you have caucus group employees whose positions and income have accountability at a different level from local church pastors, then you do not have an effort in good faith. When one side authors a proposal and it does not change in negotiations, it is not an effort in good faith.
In short:
- There’s no negotiations between parties if there’s no substantial changes from one side’s prepared agenda.
- There’s no equality to the group when caucus group leaders with vast connections are placed alongside local church pastors and laity.
- The over-the-top promotions of intergroup work together papers over the product and the participants.
- The same people who are trying to harass a clergyperson out of ministry have cut a moratorium out of the final principles. They seem to want to remove as many people as possible before they cast lots to divide the clothing. If they really wanted a merciful conversation, they would have called for the dropping of the cases against Anna Blaedel in Iowa and David Meredith in Ohio.
So I have deep reservations about this plan, not only because of its proposed polity, but because its process has been deceptive from the start and continues that in the marketing today.
Your Turn
The Indianapolis Plan began as a WCA-authored Plan by a caucus group employee, and resisted revision from its WCA-authored components through its final inception. No matter the spin, this origin needs to be known so the components of the Indianapolis Plan can be clearly critiqued instead of papered-over by alleged joint authorship.
Thoughts?
Thanks for reading, commenting, and sharing on social media.
Fact check postscript: the week after publishing, the co-convener gave a different narrative which I included above. While the group composition and drafters section need updates to paint a fuller picture, the purpose of the post being to critique the potential agenda items and give allowance to people to critique even a “jointly-crafted Plan” held strong through the vetting process. Thanks to Darren and others for the accountability and the transparency of the process.
When more than 75% of the US Church elected center to progressive delegates to the 2020 GC, the conservative so-called traditionalists saw the hand writing on the wall. The Traditionalist Plan will never be accepted by the US church. The more people in the pews know about it, the more they shun it. This Indianapolis Plan is a thinly disguised effort to preempt the center-left prior to 2020. Call it out for the fraud that it is.
Cato ended every speech in the Roman senate with “Carthago delenda est,” (Carthage must be destroyed. He could be talking about renovations to the public baths, tax on grain, or street sanitation, but his fixation was on crashing Carthage. Jeremy’s solo, the closing song of countless postings, might as well be, “WCA delenda est,” the WCA must be whacked. So the pastors of Hennepin Avenue and Hyde Park churches really are that stupid and can be “had,” or are co-conspirators with the WCA? Kent Millard likewise is mentally deficient and clueless? Darren Cushman-Wood and Doug Damron are gullible damaged goods? Was it a mistake for this group to issue a collective statement inviting feedback from all perspectives in plenty of time for further dialogue and a hopeful alternative to a St. Louis replay? Such efforts at collaborative grace also must be suspect and rejected? Philippians 4:8 is still in the Book, in case you have forgotten.
Very appropriate and worthy of this completely reasonable response: you efficiently summarized Jeremy’s true motives..
Hyperbolic much, “bob”? Good grief. Post something a little more appropriate and perhaps you’ll attract reasonable responses and dialog.
As frameworks go, it’s not a bad start. Sure there are flaws, as Jeremy points out, but I don’t see anything that would be unreconcilable for people acting in good faith. We will never get a perfect plan for dissolution; neither will the Traditionalists. If we can land of a plan that’s a little upsetting to everyone but good enough, then we’ve probably reached the right compromise.
As the lay leader of a mid-sized church whose congregation is pretty evenly divided on the issue, I do not look forward to the decision we will have to ultimately make on how we align ourselves.
Hi Jeremy:
I am one of the progressives involved with the Indianapolis Plan and I am hosting the meetings. There are several inaccuracies and outdated information in your post, which I am sure you did not intentionally mean to pass on to your readers.
So, give me a call. My cell is [redacted by admin]. I’ll eventually blog my responses to your post so that everyone can read my response, but before I do I want to talk personally with you so that I do not misrepresent your position in my blog or do harm to the progressives who were invited to participate in the Indianapolis Plan but chose not to.
I don’t expect us to agree on anything and it is not my intention to convince you that what I am doing is right. I just think the right thing to do is to talk first before I write something.
But don’t call me tonight because the Mets are playing now, and I want to take a break from thinking about the shit in the denomination and enjoy the game.
The reason I want to talk directly with you instead of just replying with my blog or other forms of social media is because I believe in a new Methodism. The old Methodism of the United Methodist Church is marked by politicking and posturing, caucuses trying to get more power and institutionalists trying to hang on to power. I believe in a new Methodism that practices holy conferencing and is founded on grace rather than unrestricted assets, a church that fully and immediately embraces our LGBTQIA+ kin. If I believe that then I need to live into that right now, which means that I need to talk with your rather than blog at you. You can’t create a new Methodism by practicing the old Methodism. So give me a call.
I guess what’s got me stirred up is that earlier today I was reading Wesley’s “Plain Account of Christian Perfection” and I want to practice holy love instead of church politics. Since you and I are elders who have pledged to go on toward Christian perfection then let’s talk first and blog second.
By the way, feel free to post this publicly, it’s ok if everyone has my number.
Darren Cushman Wood, Senior Pastor
North UMC, Indianapolis
Darren –
You. Are. The. Man.
Thanks Darren. Let’s connect offline. I removed your cell phone from this post so it isn’t publicly available.
Translation: I don’t care a whole lot that I have distorted the facts. I’ll call you sometime, and may make minor changes in specific words I use, but will not change my biased opinions. That is what I have done other times when my postings were refuted by people who knew the truth.
In the meantime, I will leave my untrue and derogatory opinions on the web to inflict further damage on well-meaning people who realize that accepting opinions of others is necessary to resolving this impasse.
Translation? Nope. That’s your own jaded and uncharitable interpretation, Dave, treating Jeremy like scum. Do you consider yourself a Christian? If so, you have a funny way of showing it.
36 hours and counting since Jeremy was contacted by Darren about inaccuracies in his post, and it is still on the blog unchanged.
Jeremy proves that my translation is indeed accurate.
Darren is replying on his blog and after he’s done with a second follow up I’ll be able to update the post with more accurate information.
Here’s part 1: https://newmethodism.wordpress.com/2019/08/18/postscript-to-a-reply-to-hacking-christianitys-criticism-of-the-indianapolis-plan/
Darren, I would be interested in reading your response on your blog; can you reply with the url?
https://newmethodism.wordpress.com/2019/08/18/postscript-to-a-reply-to-hacking-christianitys-criticism-of-the-indianapolis-plan/
Thanks for sharing that, Jeremy. Looks like you’re being a bit hasty, “Dave.” Jeremy and Darren are setting a good example for the rest of us, and your impatience is showing.
A responsible blogger would have removed the incendiary post altogether and developed a more appropriate article after talking to Darren. Leaving the existing rant does not represent any consideration of Darren’s account of the true story.
If is Jeremy who shows impatience by damning a proposed solution without appropriate investigation.
Where’s your responsibility lie, Dave?
Maybe you ought to temper your commentary. You play one note, all the time, and it’s flat.
I have made no claims that are not factual. That is where my responsibility begins and ends. Sorry you can’t handle the truth.
Christ expects us to love our neighbor, Dave.
When is the last time you said I kind word toward Jeremy?
I haven’t seen one yet.
Now as far as I recall you haven’t claimed to be a Christian either. But it’s an internet truism that post=care, so you seem to care a LOT. And it’s always directly negatively.
So I ask you again, Dave – what is your responsibility here?
Hey JR, Thanks for the question once again, and the opportunity to answer you once again. I’ll expand a bit on my first response; perhaps I was unclear.
My responsibility is to the 10 Commandments, #8 of which deals with refraining from false witness. That is why I call Jeremy to remove/rewrite/recant his posting in light of the facts that Darren forwarded, lest he run afoul of the 8th Commandment. Jeremy (admittedly) based his opinion on an early draft document, and demonizes the entire effort based on that falsity (oh, and his apparent desire to defeat and punish Traditionalists).
I’m just suggesting that an esteemed man of the cloth such as Jeremy ought to know and would want to set a good example by obeying the Commandments.
Don’t try to complicate it, it’s really that simple.
Pretty much exactly as I expected, Dave.
I probably could have written that for you – but I’m usually optimistic that someone will surprise me.
I’ll pray for you, Dave. At least you’ll have that going for you.
Not sure why you feel the need to pray for me; I abide by the Commandments so I’m all set. I appreciate your prayers, but would rather have you pray for those who do not abide by the Commandments and need some help. Lots of people in jail need your prayers and actions.
P.S. In the future please don’t turn this blog post into a discussion about me; please focus on Jeremy’s statements and actions as he asks us to do, and to which I confine my comments, until you turn your attention to me. I regret that I played into your sad game; it is Jeremy I will now focus on in a positive way.
Hey Jeremy,
Please, pretty please, would you take down your post until you find out more from Darren? Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Love, Dave
Hello Dave. Darren gave a second substantial update, so i was able to incorporate the reflections into the document above. Blessings!
Thank you for that update.
I appreciate your effort to extract and summarize the key information, provide background information and provide context. I also would appreciate reporting that brings light without the sword.
These are difficult times and emotions are high. When our anger bursts out of our mouths, whether it is justified or not, it clouds the message.
For me personally, I now understand that the Indianapolis Plan was developed with a Traditional leaning and you are very upset about that. My next step will be to consider it’s merits despite the circumstances of its birth.
Thanks Cathy for a comment predicated on Grace and sensibility.
I can’t wait to see the Jeremy Smith separation plan. We are never all going to hold hands and sing Kum Ba yah and traditionalist should hold the day in 2020 and will control for years to come. Seems like WCA is willing to give up power to buy peace. Remember this is no longer as us denomination. So what is your plan that brings peace that can pass in 2020.
I think the word “HACK” in you name is appropriate. Maybe POLITICAL HACK would be better thought.
^^^ Truly a Christ-like response. Get up on the wrong side of the bed, Jack?
Wow, David…so while you’re busy telling him about the stick in his eye, I guess you didn’t notice the one in your own? Since when has sarcasm been Christ-like? Your response doesn’t seem very Christ-like to me. Why don’t you offer true grace and just move on past the comments you don’t like, or at the very least, write a sincere reply?
OK, Winter, I think you’re right. Sarcasm isn’t Christ-like and so Jack, I sincerely apologize!
I appreciate the effort the folks at Indianapolis made. As I understand, resolutions and other legislation has to me made by Sept 18. I am glad Darren and other UMC came together and proposed a plan of separation. We just need to find a way to separate in a kind manner and not continue to throw rocks at each other. We have different visions for how to do effective ministry. Hopefully 2020 will give us methodists a chance to move forward with different but passionate desire “to make disciples of Jesus Christ to transform the world”. I am thankful for those who helped craft the Indianapolis Plan. I am proud that at least two of our Indiana clergy are at the forefront of this effort.
I wonder how logistically this Umc division could work.
The R C L do not exist in some geographical North East West South but are interwoven throughout every jurisdiction, conference, district, and even congregations.
Hum- guess some would take the sanctuary, some the fellowship hall and some the multi purpose building.
Or will there be an imposed division in each conference and the 3 new denominations will be just as divided as before.
Hmmmm – this is the classic “throw the baby out with the bath water” commentary. He doesn’t like the authors so it is a bad idea! Where is his solution to the problem?
I suggest you read it again: I didn’t like the other proposed ideas (see the bullet points) and was concerned they were unpublished parts of this plan. It looks like based on Darren’s blog that they didn’t make the final piece: https://newmethodism.wordpress.com/2019/08/18/postscript-to-a-reply-to-hacking-christianitys-criticism-of-the-indianapolis-plan/
Maybe you do not realize how caustic your commentaries sound to traditionalists. We are not the enemy. We simply believe differently than you. It would be OK to show us a modicum of respect rather than act like we are out to end the world as you think it should be. None of us like the mess UMC has drifted into and the only thing that those of us who are tied to this mess of a church can do is to work to end the war with as much grace and understanding possible.
A good start would be to at least pull down this post until you do have all the facts. And by the way, you probably need to vet your sources better.
It’s ironic. You could take that first paragraph, change just one word (“traditionalists”), and use it perfectly well as a response to so many things said by the WCA / Good News Caucus / Confessing Movement / traditionalists. In fact it would be even more appropriate that way. The progressives and centrists haven’t embarked on a campaign to force others out of the denomination. They weren’t the ones who instigated numerous church trials to revoke clergy orders.
You say “We are not the enemy” but you treat us as though we are the enemy. SMH.
“The progressives and centrists haven’t embarked on a campaign to force others out of the denomination.”
“A group of centrists and progressives is offering a plan that would eliminate The United Methodist Church’s restrictions against LGBTQ ordination and same-sex weddings, while allowing local churches that disagree to depart and organize into new forms of Methodism.”
source: https://www.umnews.org/en/news/umcnext-plan-would-end-lgbtq-restrictions
I’m still a little astounded that nobody seemed to want to include any International voices in this planning session. The Methodists overseas will surely be impacted by all of this. Shouldn’t they also be at least somewhat included in some of the discussion about the future?
Interesting stuff. But, mostly wonkishly irrelevant to the pew-sitters.
While you lay and clergy ecclesiastical aficionados debate the finer points of the inevitable divorce settlement, a whole bunch of laypeople watch, with mounting disgust, the debate that is essentially focused on, and driven by, the robes.
Every congregation in 25 years that I pastored had gay & lesbian members and no one gave a rat’s…anatomy. They were accepted for who they were – church members in equal standing.
Then, along comes the LGBTQAI+XYZ clergy who decide they have the divine right to disregard the BoD and do whatever feels right. They’re supported, often, by spineless PC bishops who sanction their disregard for UMC polity.
How can bishops do that? Well, they wave their shepherd’s staff like a wand, and so it is and shall be for evermore.
And here we are, debating the minutiae of a Rube Goldberg Plan that won’t work, as the train wreck in slow motion continues. .
Just split the sheets and get on with it. Before you look around for the congregation and much of it will have moved on.
Bravo for telling the truth. I too was a congregant in a gender diverse UMC that was a testament to “other-blindnsss” until it was torn asunder by malcontented Progressives in the name of inclusivity. Progressivism will ultimately destroy the UMC.
Lee, why not just admit the truth that you left the UM hierarchy as conference staff twenty years ago to seek greener pastures in the secular world as some kind of management consultant, and now you’ve resorted to attacking LGBTQ leadership and writing (under a pseudonym) for BREITBART! You’re not exactly a paragon of being loyal to the United Methodist Church. Do I detect a hint of ex-clerical cynicism here? You jumped ship twenty years ago, and now you criticize those who stayed on board from your vaunted safe harbor.
Thank you for posting the truth. I too have sat amongst fellow sinners in the pews. The supposed non-heterosexual community acts more like a gestapo in all things. If you are in disagreement then you must be made to pay. What is going on in the UMC is subversion cloaked in sanctimony. When did homosexuality cease being a sin? What Christian wants a person pridefully living in sin to be their spiritual leader? That is what this is about. If the so called community wanted to play church they could go start one but instead they seek to destroy. In the end UMC will be fine. We will be smaller but rooted in the Book and living out truth.
To ALL,
I am just a laity and don’t pretend to fully understand all the complexities of he Indianapolis Plan. However, one item that jumps off the sheet to me is the sImple majority language. Historically, most major decisions for a congregation require a 2/3 majority vote. I feel strongly that whoever drafted that language would have great difficulty defending it within the context of faith and fairness.
Morton Hoagland
I’m a Traditionalist UMC clergyman and The Indianapolis Plan has real problems for me too – but for different reasons than are most often decried here.
It was crafted in secret, paternalistically spoon-fed with euphemisms to us rank-and-file members of the WCA — with no opportunity to even register a comment, let alone get to review and critique detailed drafts.
Some conservatives see this Indianapolis Plan’s purpose and its polemic origins as contrary to what they feel is demanded of all churches in 1 Corinthians chapter 5, among other Scriptural passages.
Oh well, whichever side prevails, Wesley’s prima scriptura is now on its way to becoming postremus scriptura, sadly — the UMC should probably no longer call itself Wesleyan, since the so-named by others Wesleyan Quadrilateral isn’t even followed, in my personal opinion. (These Wesleyan foundational teachings, now becoming anathema, were precisely what drew me to the UMC from another denomination 20 years ago).
Meanwhile, I’ll be praying still for all UMC pastors to grow constantly more closer to God — myself, of course, included.