Ten Years Later - The UMC in 2028, pt. 2

In Part 1 we looked at what would happen to the UMC in the next several years if General Conference ends in any of four different outcomes. In this post we look at the final possibility. It's important for me to be clear that this outcome is my preference. I am trying, though, to be objective in what the future holds.

One Church Plan Passes with No Exit Path

• Some churches, maybe many churches, will leave. Rob Renfroe from Good News and Keith Boyette from the WCA have both promised this and I have no reason to doubt them. We found out yesterday that this has been a known option for at least 15 years. It's important to note that the fact that churches will leave is proof that we actually do have an exit path. Unfortunately it is used regularly. The number of churches that will leave is impossible to quantify. Renfroe recently said 200 from the Texas Conference would leave, which is roughly 30%. In the Great Plains the number 50 has been used. That's 5%. It seems reasonable that the number will be between those two extremes. But note that as we saw in the first post some of these churches are leaving no matter what happens in St. Louis. It just isn't possible for us to know how many will leave with the passage of any plan.
  
• An Exit Path will come up again. 2020 is one year away. If no exit path is passed in 2019 it is guaranteed to come up in 2020. And in 2020 I might even be willing to support some kind of exit. I agree with those who say it is not possible for all of us to stay in the same denomination. The difference is that I think 90% of us can stay together while the pessimists will insist that's not possible. Wise pastors, district superintendents, and even caucus groups will tell churches that want to exit to wait a year to see what happens. I'm convinced that one reason there is such a push for an exit path right now is to maximize the number of departing churches. The most important point in the 2004 document linked above is that Good News cited leaving the denomination largely intact as a disadvantage to departure. The WCA doesn't just want to leave if the MTP fails. They want to leave with as many people, pastors, and churches as possible. Those aren't my words. They are Tom Lambrecht's words in the 2004 document. Giving everyone a year to adjust before taking up a plan for exit is just common sense. Nothing will change so quickly that we can't wait for one year to make sure we get a plan right. I have talked to many progressives and have not heard any of them express a desire for holding hostages. Few have talked about the need to hold all the assets. An exit for a smaller number of churches can be accommodated after the crisis moment is over.
  
• In the Central Conferences nothing really will change. The redefinition of marriage is a great talking point for opponents to the OCP. In reality, our definition doesn't change much. 131C in our Social Principles is essentially our definition. It is also one of the least changed aspects to the BOD in the OCP. For example, it will still say that traditionally marriage is understood as between one man and one woman. This will not be as hard to explain in central conferences as the fear-mongers would like us to believe. I trust that our central conference communicators will be able to share that a change has happened in some places in the United States that are irrelevant to the work that will be done in their countries.
  
• In the U.S. not as much will change as some think. I'm the senior pastor of the largest reconciling congregation in the Kansas City metro. If I was able to perform same-sex weddings I would have one or possibly two couples ask me to do so right away. The reality is that people who have wanted to get married have not waited for us to catch up. They've already married. Outside of congregations already identified as reconciling there will be very few churches that even take a vote. Fear-mongers have said that if even one person in a church wants a vote then that will happen. A pastor would have to be really, really ineffective for one person to hold that kind of power. Similarly, most annual conferences will not choose to ordain "self avowed practicing homosexuals." We already know most of the ones that will.
  
• There will be some resorting. Some clergy who are gay will move to a conference that is open to their appointment. More significantly to the average person, some churches will have shifting congregations. This will likely look different in different regions. In rural areas with few options and already well established relationships church members will most likely stay put. In cities where there are other options it's much more likely that parishioners will sort themselves into more comfortable settings. This is going to be challenging. Most of us in larger cities know that it already happens even now. The resorting will be uncomfortable for a few years and then it will be complete.
  
• Bishops will keep making appointments - and most of them will be totally fine. I always believe what I preach. I don't preach everything I believe. I suspect that is typical. I trust that most pastors will be wise in how they choose to share their opinions and that cabinets will know where to put pastors to maximize their effectiveness. I also suspect that the pastors who are not wise enough to monitor how and what they say will have a hard time being effective for reasons completely separate from the subject at hand. I wish we all had a little more faith in our elected bishops abilities.
  
• The debate will not end, or radically change. We will talk about this again in 2020. And 2024. And 2028. But, importantly, under this scenario it is by no means a forgone conclusion that General Conference will further liberalize their decision. 2/3 of U.S. delegates are going to vote for the OCP. If this was a U.S. only vote change would have happened before now. But remember that under this scenario there is not a widespread exit. There is a moderate exit. The coalition that will pass the OCP in this scenario is not one that would hold together to make more change. At best, the OCP will pass with around 55% of the vote. It's highly doubtful that small margin would hold for a further leftward push in 2020 or 2024 even if an exit path was approved. The votes certainly wouldn't be there without an exit path. And, frustrating to some and a relief to others, the fight for further equality will continue for the foreseeable future. 

There is more I'm sure. Let me know what I'm missing and I'll add to the list. The bottom line to this scenario is this: The One Church Plan without an accompanying exit path will not be painless. There is no pain free path in front of us. It will also not be unbearable. Without a rush to leave we will learn that almost all of us can continue to work and worship together, Making Disciples of Jesus Christ for the Transformation of the World.