The Best Reasons to Oppose the One Church Plan Aren't Good Enough

My support for the One Church Plan (OCP) is unequivocal. This has disappointed some of my friends on both the theological left and right. There are good reasons for this. For me, they just aren't good enough reasons. 

In this post I share what, for me, are the single best arguments against it from the left and right. This is subjective, of course. For example, I'm persuaded that one can make a scriptural argument for either position. I've made those arguments and held both positions at different times in my life. So I'm not arguing scripture in this post. To me the best arguments against the OCP relate to inclusion and tradition.

The Argument from the Left

As soon as I voiced support for the OCP some of my friends called me a traitor. For many years I fell into the camp of a traditional compatibilist. Now I suppose I'm a progressive compatibilist. I fully understand, though, those who see the OCP as a compromise on a basic God-given right. The argument is that we would not be "compatibilists" on racism or sexism so why would we be compatibilists on heterosexism? It's a good argument. I hope that we can all reject racism and sexism today.

The answer, for me, is that progress is important. Let me use a different analogy. I'm opposed to the death penalty, which is legal in Kansas where I live. If I was a legislator and had the opportunity to vote to abolish the death penalty I would. But what if that wasn't a politically viable option? What if a bill came up that did not abolish the death penalty but did eliminate it as an option for 60% of the crimes that it is currently an option for? I would vote for that bill, too. 60% is not enough, but it is better than the status quo. In the same way, the OCP is not enough. My hope is that the day will come when we are as clear on this as we are on racism and sexism (which, note, doesn't mean neither racism nor sexism have been eliminated.) That's not where we are right now. I will take the possibility of significant progress over the status quo any day.

The Argument from the Right

So I'm not a "traditionalist" when  it comes to LGBTQ inclusion. I am pretty traditional, or even conservative, in a number of other areas. I value history and believe it can be a guide for our future. For me, the best argument to maintain our current position as a denomination is the clear Christian witness for the last 2,000 years. As best as I can tell ordaining and marrying "self avowed practicing homosexuals" is a departure from the large majority of Christianity over the entire course of Christian history. We should take that very seriously. In fact, if it wasn't for the clear harm that we are doing to LGBTQ people this might be a strong enough argument to persuade me to stay with the status quo even though I personally disagree with it. But the weakness of the argument actually comes from its own strength.

I have argued elsewhere and continue to maintain that if the United Methodist Church splits into progressive and traditional denominations it will not be long before the traditional group has to deal with the question of women's ordination. To be clear, I believe the leadership of conservative caucuses who say that they don't intend for this to be questioned. But I also believe the individuals who have told me that they already do question it, including high-ranking conference officials who have shared that many churches refuse to accept women as pastors. But the best argument to end women's ordination is the exact same argument used to reject LGBTQ ordination. 

The largest branch of Christianity in the world is the Catholic Church. A full 50% of Christians are Catholic. The Catholic church does not allow women to be priests.

Roughly 12% of Christians are some form of Eastern Orthodox. Again, by and large women are not ordained.

That leaves about 37% of Christianity as Protestant, the only grouping that allows women's ordination. Except in the United States the largest Protestant body is the Southern Baptist Convention - which does not ordain women. In fact, the United Methodist Church is the largest denomination that does ordain women. It is also the only mainline denomination that ordains women and does not ordain people who are LGBTQ. In fact, by my count only about 11% of people in the U.S. are members of a denomination that allows for women's ordination. 

When you account for today's statistics along with the whole scope of Christian history, the hard reality for traditionalists is that women's ordination is only slightly more popular than LGBTQ ordination. If we want to be in harmony with Christian tradition and with our sister denominations around the world then we have already moved too far beyond the norm.

Helenor Davison was ordained in the Methodist Protestant Church, one of our ancestor denominations, in 1866. She was the fourth woman ordained in a denomination in the United States (the second was a woman in the Wesleyan Church, which also has Methodist ties). I'm glad that we chose to buck such a solid Christian norm so that Rev. Davison's calling and the calling of so many of her descendants-in-faith including many of my colleagues could be fulfilled.We are richer because of it. So it is for my colleagues and could-be colleagues who happen to be gay.

Bottom Line

There are certainly other arguments as well as these two. It is clear to me that the OCP is not an unambiguous final answer to a deep question. It is a compromise. Compromises by their very nature leave people on both sides unsettled. But I've found that much of life, including my faith life, is often unsettled. We often must wrestle with the next right decision. God journeys with us but does not always make all the answers clear. I believe the OCP is the best way for us to continue journeying together for this season.

What's Wrong with the "Traditionalist" Plan - Part 3

The last two posts have hit on ten different issues with the seventeen petitions that make up the traditionalist plan. None of those are tied to where a person may stand on LGBT inclusion. They are all about the language the petitions use and larger implications for the denomination. They are all also specific to individual or groups of petitions. In this post I address additional concerns that come from the overall plan. Quotes are from Appendix 3 of the document released by the Judicial Council titled "A Conversation within the Council of Bishops: A Traditional Plan." Numbering picks up where we left off:

11. The section of this document titled "Theological and Biblical Foundations" lets the cat out of the bag. The purpose of the plan is to divide. The first paragraph finishes with, "it is appropriate for there to be two different Wesleyan bodies who teach differently on the question of Christian marriage between same gender persons" and goes on to say, "We should see the formation of a new Wesleyan denomination as an opportunity for a different type of unity..." We have repeatedly been told that this is the plan that will hold the denomination together. Let's be clear - the Traditionalist Plan is the ONLY plan (other than a plan to dissolve the denomination entirely) that specifically says one of its purpose is to divide. It's no secret that no matter what happens at General Conference in 2019 some United Methodists will leave the denomination. Heck, that's old news by this point. We've been declining in size for decades. But there is a difference, both theologically and practically, when a group actually announces that this is part of their purpose.

There is an important second piece here, too. Recall that the traditionalists say it would be good to have two denominations so that "different Wesleyan bodies" will teach differently on same-sex marriage. OK. Let's do that. Adopt the One Church Plan or the Simple Plan. While the traditionalist authors appear to be thinking broadly about a Wesleyan witness they are forgetting all of our sister denominations. Among the denominations in the Wesleyan family tree are the Free Methodist, Wesleyan, Church of the Nazarene, AME, CME, AMEZ, Salvation Army, and Assemblies of God. To the best of my knowledge none of these denominations allow gay clergy or marriage. As a person who supports inclusion, I've been asked why I haven't already left the United Methodist Church for another denomination before now. The simplest answer is this: I'm a Wesleyan Christian. I would need to give up so much more of my theology to leave for a different denomination. When the church I serve was discussing becoming a Reconciling Congregation someone asked me about whether taking that designation would exclude someone who is not reconciling from attending. My answer was something like this: "My understanding is that to be reconciling means everyone is truly welcome. I wouldn't want anyone to leave. I also know that if someone needs to be in a church where LGBT people are not fully included there are many to choose from. So if I have to make a choice between being a pastor for someone who is gay or someone who does not welcome full inclusion it's an easy choice. There aren't other options for our LGBT members." That's true for us as denominations, also. The simplest way to allow for the stated goal of having "different Wesleyan bodies who teach differently" is to vote for change in the UMC.

12. This is a related point. Regarding the effects of adopting the Traditionalist Plan, the group states "All general boards and agencies remain the same..." Officially this is true. In reality it won't be. We know this because some of our boards and agencies have been regularly attacked by Good News and other right-leaning caucuses. There is no question that a theological shift to the right that would happen in this plan would result in changes to the support in general boards and agencies. Indeed, some would welcome this.

13. The plan also states that there would be no change for clergy. "Clergy would continue to be subject to the Discipline of the church as they agreed in their ordination vows." Not exactly. The Discipline changes every four years. Our statements on inclusion and practice have changed significantly in the twenty years that I've been ordained and we have active pastors who were ordained forty years ago. In fact, this plan has the most change in the Discipline of any viable plan proposed. 

14. The traditionalist plan is supposedly the only plan that "provides assurances that traditional UM can continue to make disciples among people who value traditional teaching on marriage and sexual behavior." This ignores repeated guarantees in the One Church Plan that provide the same assurances to traditionalists. This is the only plan that forces the denominations will on all pastors, conferences, and local churches.

15. Finally, particularly for those who are more conservative, this plan does not end the debate. Let me give you one very clear example. The biggest "scandal" that has arisen recently in the denomination is over the commissioning of M. Barclay as a Deacon. M is transgender. Transgender is not the same thing as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. The traditionalist plan does not directly impact M's commissioning or ordination at all. So when will that plan hit the floor?

It would be so nice to have this all over. It would be so nice if we could just be a big happy church family like in Acts 2. That's the kind of purity and simplicity that the Traditionalist Plan aspires to. But the reality is that only four chapters later in Acts 6 the church has a big fight. Church is messy. Family is messy. Church family is messy. I hope that we can resolve this debate sometime soon. But ending one debate is also just prelude to another debate. We will never have the church that each of us believes is the perfect church. It just won't happen. Instead, God asks us to live with our mutual imperfections, including our imperfect theologies, and work together for the common good. I hope we can do that together in the UMC.

What's Wrong with the "Traditionalist" Plan - Part 2

There are so many issues with this plan that I can't fit them into one post. The first post contained 7 critical issues covering the first 5 of 17 petitions. Note, again, that all of these issues are independent of how you feel about LGBT inclusivity.

Similar to one of the earlier points, I want to note that the 6th petition requires nominees to the Board of Ordained Ministry certify that they will uphold the Discipline solely in the area of "self avowed practicing homosexuals." There is no other requirement for a BOM member. I'm not numbering this as an additional issue but it bears attention.

8. Petition 7 gives us a third way of categorizing people. Some petitions keep our current language of "self-avowed practicing," petition 5 simply says "self-avowed" and now in petition 7 we have only
"practicing." Inconsistent language confuses the issue instead of bringing the desired clarity.

9. Petitions 8 and 9 are fascinating (these petitions have identical language applied to two different paragraphs). "Every Annual Conference shall certify that the bishop has nominated only members of the Board of Ministry..." consistent with petition 7. This is an enforcement mechanism for petition 7. And if the Annual Conference doesn't do this then the entire Annual Conference is kicked out of the UMC. Let me rephrase this. I'm not on the Board. I don't know if my bishop has asked the proper questions. For that matter, I don't know if the nominees have been truthful. But I'm expected to vote to affirm nominees without any way of knowing if those nominees actually qualify. And if as an Annual Conference we don't vote to affirm that all nominees for the BOOM believe something that we cannot verify, if we don't vote to affirm that the bishop has done something that we cannot verify, then we as an entire Annual Conference are kicked out of the denomination. That is a remarkable vote to ask for.

10. Petition 10 is the big one. It's titled "Implementing Gracious Accountability." Gracious is in the eye of the beholder. In summary, the 13 page petition creates a new paragraph that "provides a mechanism for ensuring that annual conferences and bishops will uphold the Discipline, while also providing a gracious exit for those conscious-bound not to do so." To accomplish this, every annual conference must vote by the end of March 2020 to affirm the new statements contained in all the other petitions that we've covered so far. There is the possibility of an extension for Central Conferences. Failure to affirm these statements means the entire Annual Conference is kicked out of the denomination. And that vote must be taken within 13 months of this proposal passing. One of the most critical votes an annual conference will take must happen within 13 months of learning that the vote will have to be taken. Bishops have until June 30, 2020 to sign the same kind of statement for themselves individually.

That's the Accountability part. The Gracious part is, I think, what follows. Every annual conference that chooses not to sign off on the statement above now has an opportunity to becoming "a self-governing Methodist church." This is the gracious exit strategy that many are concerned the One Church Plan doesn't have. It also allows any 50 or more congregations to form a new self-governing Methodist Church with no financial ramifications other than helping to fund any unfunded pension liabilities. To be clear, these churches are very definitely no longer United Methodist. I would note two items here. First, many churches that choose to leave the denomination are already leaving under these same basic terms. The reality is most annual conferences are not going to want to deal with a rural congregation's church building or a suburban/urban church building with substantial debt. In almost all these cases the local church holds the cards and the annual conference will ultimately allow them to leave. Second, under this plan any church can exit for any reason. We know that there are some within the WCA and other conservative caucuses who believe that the best option is to dissolve the denomination. The WCA president has submitted the necessary legislation. The traditionalist plan is supposed to hold the church together, but in reality it makes it very simple for any local church to leave.

I'm not addressing petitions 11-17. A couple of these, particularly petition 11 (which contains harsh minimum mandatory sentences) are likely going to be ruled unconstitutional. The others could be appropriate changes regardless of where we end up with the traditionalist plan overall. But I'm not done with concerns about the plan. I'll have one more post still that looks at some big picture pieces. I'll also compare some of the arguments against the One Church Plan (OCP) with the Traditionalist Plan. I think we'll see that many of the concerns about the OCP, both legitimate and illegitimate, are not care for any better with the Traditionalist Plan.