“I am Altering The Deal”
In 1980’s Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back, the evil Darth Vader has made a deal with the opportunist cloud city administrator Lando Calrissian: If Lando helps Vader capture Luke Skywalker, then Vader would take Skywalker and leave the cloud city alone.
However, once Vader had Skywalker on site, he changed the deal: Vader would now be taking Princess Leia as prisoner, and Han Solo would be given to the bounty hunter Boba Fett. When Lando objects to these changes, Vader replies with menace:
“I am altering the deal. Pray I don’t alter it any further.”
Lando concludes the scenes by lamenting
“This deal’s getting worse all the time.”
Such is the sentiment with the Indianapolis Plan. What began with celebration of a jointly-crafted plan has now become foreboding saber-rattling power plays as we enter the final seven months before General Conference 2020.
The Odd Pairing of the WCA and the Indianapolis Plan
I’ll admit I was surprised at the press release last week: The Wesleyan Covenant Association Leadership Council has officially endorsed the Indianapolis Plan. Quote:
We regretfully support the separation of The United Methodist Church, and in doing so, we support the principles outlined in the Indianapolis Plan for Amicable Separation. If a mutually agreeable plan of separation does not occur, we support the full implementation of the Traditional Plan.
I was surprised because division is not the acceptable goal to the WCA. We know from the 2004 Good News strategy document that division allowed part of the Church to continue to seek full LGBTQ inclusion. That’s lamentable to the Traditionalists: to leave the “other side” with the resources to promote a morally objectionable viewpoint was anathema to them. So division seems like a retreat from the goal of takeover and expulsion.
It’s also very odd that they are not promoting their “own” plan. The Reform and Renewal Coalition, which includes most of the people in the WCA, has a slim majority vote at General Conference 2020 if the Central Conferences vote the same way they did in 2019. They could write their own plan (several of their members and affiliated bishops like Bishop Scott Jones wrote the Traditional Plan for General Conference 2019). Even with the swell of centrist and progressive delegates in opposition to the Traditional Plan, they could still barely pass their own plan.
So what gives? Are they tired or do they not actually have the votes?
No.
The WCA doesn’t have to win on the Plan…
General Conference 2020 is shaping up to be a battle of overarching plans. There are almost a dozen submitted plans and petitions, with more to be revealed. General Conference 2019 was a debate over only four plans (three from the Commission on A Way Forward and the Simple Plan from the Queer Clergy Caucus). So this becomes more of a circus than even 2019.
To this battle of the plans, which any strategist could tell you was coming, it seems the WCA created an end-run around it: create a joint plan with Centrists and Progressives that could then be changed to their liking on the floor. With all three sides having perceived buy-in, passing this joint separation plan as a framework would be much more likely than a bullied-through WCA plan.
The key to this strategy is that rather than compromise on the heavily disputed areas, the three sides decided to submit their own amendments to the deal over disputed terms and see which one won on the GC floor. The Indy Plan is thus more like a loose agreement than a plan, leaving General Conference to debate some of the particulars with majority rule rather than mutual compromise.
…The WCA just has to win on Amendments
The Indianapolis Plan is a division plan: it takes the denomination and divides it along rigid lines with some common structures.
One of the areas that is left for amendments (because the participants could not agree) is on asset division. The connective tissues of the United Methodist Church are the General Boards and Agencies which are supported by church tithes from every local church (apportionments). Some of those Boards have been able to put those tithes into investments which further support ministry. Some have a acquired property that provides funds for ministry. And some don’t have much reserves and live or die year to year. But all their funds have been given in trust to those ministries. And these general agencies have not always been supported by church tithes from Traditionalist churches which have a decades-old history of withholding apportionments.
The first Indianapolis Plan amendment by the WCA (hosted here on Chris Ritter’s website) proposes taking all those reserves, properties, investments, and gifts of those General Agencies and putting them in one pot to be divided between the various expressions based on membership. We’ll have further commentary on it as details about how much money we are talking about become available later this year (GCFA is preparing the data for their board meeting in November).
But you see that such an amendment, with seemingly innocent and fair language, threatens to punish and defund general church entities which have long been in the crosshairs of the Reform and Renewal Coalition. And the WCA will get their money and defund “the other sides” without having to fight the Plan battle, which is right in line with the 2004 Good News battle plan.
Finally, know that Amendments is where the Traditionalist track record is strongest because of their use of voting guides and rapid communication. Each year they publish voting guides for the legislation, and in 2008, they distributed cell phones to delegates for rapid communication. In 2019, they finally complied with the rules of General Conference by not distributing voting guides. What they sponsored was breakfasts where they distributed blank voting sheets and then told the people to fill them in themselves with the suggested votes that were shared at those breakfasts. So they technically did not violate the letter but definitely the spirit of the rules. And power plays like this will be ever-present at General Conference 2020 as they can act with reckless abandon since they are seeking to leave the institution that would censure them anyway.
The gloves are off, and the Indianapolis Plan leads us right into the arena where progressives and centrists will be blindsided.
This could have been avoided
After my first article on the Indianapolis Plan, I had a phone conversation with one of the people in the room. While I don’t feel right sharing the contents of the private call, I will share one thing I said because it was my own unsolicited advice.
I encouraged the person to solidify a deal and have the group commit to no amendments. None. That’s what a deal between a majority and a minority group requires: no amendments, just support the deal. “Pray I do not alter it further.”
While they were under no obligation to heed my advice, what happened is precisely what I had feared. The Indianapolis Plan has the veneer of compromise among varied groups, but underneath is the same majority rule and power politics that GC is susceptible to. And we have the Indianapolis Plan creators to thank for putting us in this perilous position.
What can we do?
First, know that the Indianapolis Plan is neither the inevitable or the “oh well we can settle for it” future of The United Methodist Church. The WCA went on several trips to Africa after it came out, and Africa Central Conference Leadership did not endorse the Indy Plan. So keep on researching the other plans to see which one you can support
Second, contact and be in conversation with your General Conference delegates from your annual conference as to your concerns about division and asset division.
Third, contact your jurisdictional representatives to the general agencies and ask how much is in their reserve funds that the WCA wants to get its hands on. Report back to me, please, so it can be compiled. The more clarity we have on the numbers, the more we understand that antigay polity is not a value, it is the vehicle to siphon millions of dollars in mission shares away from their intended ministries and into the WCA unregulated and accountability-free coffers.
Your turn
The Indianapolis Plan is kind of a microcosm of the UMC: one side believing the other side is capable of being good, of upholding the shared values of the deal, and that other side using it to their advantage.
I lament we ended up here, but the collision of the plans and proposals has only just begun, and you can rely on this space to give clear commentary on all that is before us.
Thoughts?
Thanks for reading, commenting, and sharing on social media.
I was contacted by an Ethiopian pastor wishing to take his church to a reconciling ministry. I have sent information concerning transgender issues and the bible which he will be using. Africa is not monolithic and attention needs to be paid to those who are shall we say bucking the trend. How about inviting him.
Jeremy,
Thank you for your insight and bringing the issues with the Indy Plan forward.
Indeed, there is a Reconciling UM congregation in Kenya.
https://www.umnews.org/en/news/first-church-in-africa-becomes-reconciling
WCA hosts breakfasts at GC 2019.
Progressives block doorways and disrupt the conference with chants from the balcony at GC 2019.
Isn’t the behavior of the WCA just a disgrace?
The tactic of demonizing the opposition became a codified principle for progressive liberals with the publication of Saul Alinsky’s book “Rules for Radicals”. Even back in 1973 it was required reading for the Church & Society class at Perkins School of Theology (SMU).
In the last three years, deployment of Alinsky’s Rule 12: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it” has become a staple of the LGBTQAI+ movement among several of the “Seven Sisters” protestant denominations. It is now heavily used in the UMC human-sexuality debate. So, the demonization of the WCA in this article is no surprise. It’s standard fare for the left. Target and then polarize your opposition.
The LGBTQetc movement is replicating the tactics of the political left in America today. (Read my explanation at: https://canadafreepress.com/article/lgbtq-activists-use-leftist-tactics-to-split-a-church)
But it is somewhat disappointing to see Rev. Jeremy use it.
It is done by all sides of any political (in this case meaning “voted on”) policy fight. People jockey for vote support in every manner they can. That is how the math works. Unless God writes on tablets again, and hands them to us, we will need to pray to be saved from each other.
True enough, Rhonda. But it becomes particularly acrimonious when, after a vote it taken, the losing side refuses to accept the decision of the vote.
Once upon a time, the Confederate States of America could not abide by the election of Lincoln and (est.) 600,000 Americans died in the war. No one will die in this war, but the union between the EUB and the Methodist churches will dissolve because the losing side would rather see the whole splinter than take their beliefs and form their own denomination independent of the former. So we bicker over bricks and mortar.
Is it Psalms 2.4 or John 11.35 that represents the Divine Response? Or a mix of both?
It would seem that the UMC cannot learn from other Christian bodies that have gone through the same progress. John Wesley says let us agree to disagree. We are not in agreement Playing chess does not help!
Not so odd, Jeremy, if you point to the obvious: in creating the IndyPlan, Tom Lambrecht and Keith Boyette were literally running the show, ably assisted by Chris Ritter.
I’m sure that those guys sleep very well at night, considering that their Plan is on target to create the illusion of a Kumbayah movement @ GC2020, followed by passing Poison Pill amendments that will give the R&R Coalition exactly what it intends to get: a financially greased exit path with a large chunk (50%?) of denominational reserve assets in the bag.
In other words, they intend to use the combined voting power of American delegates of all stripes to pass the IndyPlan to divide the UMC over the objections of the Central Conference delegates and then manipulate the Central Conference delegates to vote for the R&R Coalition’s amendments over the objections of the majority of American delegates.
Nice work, guys!
Here’s why the WCA is endorsing the IndyPlan instead of (barely) passing their own: they now see that their preferred result (the enhanced Traditionalist Plan)–with additional punitive ‘screws’ that are waiting to be introduced @ GC2020–will result in an unmanageable outcome: a denomination in free-fall *without* a financially generous ‘gracious exit’ plan for the WCA.
So now it’s time to get out of the imploding UMC while the getting is good.
So the IndyPlan amendments are like pulling the emergency slide to escape a burning airplane.
What gets to me personally is the question of just how these guys’ exit strategy is about being loyal to the UMC. Unless their intention to eviscerate the denomination is their idea of “loyalty”.
Jeremy,
I’m so grateful for your work here, particularly in making the obscure less so. And for doing your part in the struggle.
For the love of God, is there any way the progressives can get TOGETHER & be as organized & prepared as the WCA is & will be? I can see that there are lots of scattered efforts, but it’s so frustrating to watch as a layperson (without much of a platform).
Again, my thanks to you.
No Kathleen. There is no way progressives “can get TOGETHER & be as organized & prepared as the WCA is & will be”. That’s because traditionalists are standing on the Solid Rock of Christ while progressives are standing on shifting sand. There is no “center” for the progressives. You have already begun to battle and divide among yourselves. Three progressive movements have emerged — centrists, progressives, and liberationists. These groups will continue to divide as the whole world shifts to the left.
In the words of the prophet and poet Jimi Hendrix, “and so castles made of sand slips into the sea eventually”. — “Castles Made of Sand”, 1967
“of upholding their shared values”….like the discipline everyone agreed to uphold to begin with? Who changed the deal again? I’m just laity so forgive me confusion….
Exactly! I am another “just laity” who thinks it was not traditionalists who changed the deal and created this mess.
Agreed. In a more sane and ethical world, those who are accorded positions of authority in an organization upon taking sacred vows to uphold and defend its principles would resign their positions if they find they cannot in good conscience continue to do so, rather than betray those vows by acting in a subversive manner. By choosing to violate their oaths, they bring discredit to both themselves and the organization.
Agreed. In a more sane and ethical world, those who are accorded positions of authority in an organization upon taking sacred vows to uphold its principles, and then for reasons of conscience find that they are unable to continue to do so, would resign their positions rather than violate their vows. To act in a subversive manner in violation of their oaths brings discredit to both the individuals and the organization.
Pastor Jeremy – do you have a chart that describes all of the plans next to each other??
Also another question, who puts together the docket (the way the voting takes place and which Bishop is in charge of voting time)?
Jeremy, your obvious disdain and distrust of the WCA and conservatives in general along with people like Wayne is why I have little hope for the outcome of Gc2020. Africans have made it cleat they won’t support a split and will stick to the traditional plan. Progressives don’t have the vote to change the BOD. Changing the constitution to make the US a central conference is a fantasy as is the idea that everyone will suddenly obey the BOD. Unless all US factions work together to change the BOD there will be no division. This article proves there is too much distrust for that to happen. Probably the best we can hope for is legislation that allows AC’s to leave the UMC and churches that disagree with their AC to switch to another AC. At least that way we will hopefully avoid destructive lawsuits. Anyway you look at this process will end with a denomination that succeeds from the umc and an African controlled UMC.
The tactic of demonizing the opposition became a codified principle for progressive liberals with the publication of Saul Alinsky’s book “Rules for Radicals”. Even back in 1973 it was required reading for the Church & Society class at Perkins School of Theology (SMU).
In the last three years, deployment of Alinsky’s Rule 12: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it” has become a staple of the LGBTQAI+ movement among several of the “Seven Sisters” protestant denominations. It is now heavily used in the UMC human-sexuality debate. So, the demonization of the WCA in this article is no surprise. It’s standard fare for the left. Target and then polarize your opposition.
“Since November 2007, Lee Cary has written hundreds of articles for several websites including the American Thinker, and Breitbart’s Big Journalism and Big Government (as “Archy Cary”). and the Canada Free Press. Cary’s work was quoted on national television (Sean Hannity) and on nationally syndicated radio (Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin). His articles have posted on the aggregate sites Drudge Report, Whatfinger, Lucianne, Free Republic, and Real Clear Politics. He holds a Doctorate in Theology from Garrett Theological Seminary in Evanston, IL, is a veteran of the US Army Military Intelligence in Vietnam, and lives in Texas.” See https://canadafreepress.com/members/1/LeeCary/78
His “Archy Cary” pseudonym is a subliminal reference to Archie Leach/Cary Grant. Ironically, Archie was gay, while Cary wasn’t. At least he wasn’t a “self-avowed, practicing” gay movie star.
After serving on the North Texas Conference staff until 1999, Lee Cary seems to have “evolved” from a loyal United Methodist minister to some kind of conservative evangelical proponent of congregational polity, writing hit pieces aimed at LGBTQ people in the Canadian press and Breitbart.
After pursuing a post-Methodist career as a business consultant, Lee Cary now has plenty of time to graciously share his frequent opinions on the internet. Even Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh quote him! Probably because he has a doctorate from Garrett.
Thank you for educating us on his distinguished background. I figured by his insightful writings that he is a well respected commentator.