General Conference Day Zero

I do not expect to write every day from St. Louis. Our official days are long and there are unofficial meetings both before and after sessions. So we'll take it a day at a time.

For today, you might consider reading this post from Chris Ritter. Chris puts his spin on a pre-conference meeting in Illinois. You need to take everything he writes with a grain of salt. There are reports out of Illinois that differ significantly from what he writes.

What I want you to focus on is a number that I do believe. Ritter shares that the WCA vote count from the U.S. is 180. Sounds like a lot until you remember that there are 504 delegates from the U.S. Multiple sources in favor of the OCP have said that we will have 2/3 of the U.S. in support. So that you don't have to do the math, 180 is 35%. In other words, Ritter and the WCA have confirmed what we've been saying. 2/3 of the United States, including a majority from every jurisdiction (region) of the U.S., support the One Church Plan.

The magic number for any proposal to pass is 433. The WCA has conceded that 324 of those votes will come from the United States. If the OCP does not pass it will be because fewer than 109 of the 360 Central Conference delegates, less than 30%, choose not to allow the U.S. to adapt to our cultural reality. I think that is very unlikely.

What a New UM Survey Really Tells Us

You may want to look at this survey that UM Communications commissioned. Right off the bat two shortcomings should be noted. First, with only a little more than 500 respondents it's hard to know how accurate it is. A statistician I am not, so maybe it is a large enough sample. Second, it consistently uses the vague terms progressive, moderate, and conservative.

The second point is especially important now as next week we consider a "progressive' Simple Plan (which some supporters argue is still not really progressive), a "centrist" One Church Plan (which some opponents call progressive), and a "conservative" Traditionalist Plan (which supporters call the status quo and some opponents call fundamentalist). But none of the three plans (and a fourth, the Connectional Conference Plan, which is a hybrid plan) focus on an overall theology. They focus instead of the question of how we include lesbian and gay people in the life of the church (note I only say the first two in the long string of letters LGBTQ+ because the plans only address those two initials - a significant shortcoming.)

This matters because between this survey and a separate Pew survey we have proof that our views on same-sex marriage specifically do not correspond precisely with our overall theology. The UMCOM study shows that 44% of U.S. United Methodists consider themselves traditional, a plurality but not a majority. 28% are moderate, 22% progressive, and the remainder unsure. For the record, I would put myself in the moderate camp. A 2014 Pew study reported that 60% of U.S. United Methodists believed that same-sex marriage should be accepted by society and 49% believed it should be accepted by the church. If every single progressive and moderate in 2018 believe in same-sex marriage AND if the UMC has defied all societal norms by not moving in a more pro-LGBT direction over the last five years then about 1 in 4 self-identified conservatives still believe that same-sex marriage is acceptable.

So, unintentionally, the UM survey tells us that what we are voting on at General Conference isn't really the biggest issue we face.

The survey also shows just how much we need each other. In his 2008 book Staying at the Table Bishop Scott Jones says, "Liberals need conservatives and conservatives need liberals. If one group leaves, we are all worse off." One question in the survey stood out to me. The question was whether the primary purpose of the denomination is to save souls or transform the world. Our mission statement says both - Make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. Our statement is consistent with John Wesley who both preached about salvation and also visited prisoners in jail. In the surveys conservative/progressive breakdown the difference is stark. 88% of conservatives said our primary purpose is to save souls as opposed to 32% of progressives. 62% of progressives chose transforming the world as opposed to 12% of conservatives. Moderates, predictably, fell in-between. But our mission statement and our history say that we need both. In other words, Bishop Jones is correct. In order for us to embrace the full call of our denomination, we need both. We need conservatives to hold us accountable for our lack of evangelism and we need progressives to hold us accountable to be the Body of Christ healing the world. The left wing and right wing keep the bird flying straight. Our left wing and right wing keep our denomination going in the right direction even with the tension that we live in. And that, in a nutshell, is why I support the One Church Plan.


Here are just a few other pieces of insight:

1) None of us really agree about the role of Scripture. We are often told that progressive don't take scripture seriously - that the Bible is unequivocally our prime authority. The survey tells us that only 41% of conservatives view Scripture as our prime authority. Granted that is far more that progressives and moderates, but as someone in the moderate camp who does believe Scripture comes first I think this is a significant issue.

2) Progressives do take the Bible more seriously than they are accused of. When asked more specifically about how they understand the Bible, virtually nobody in any theological camp dismissed it as just an old book. 2/3 of progressives still call it inspired. I am equally disappointed in the 1/3 of progressives who don't think it is inspired as I am by the 30% of traditionalists who call it the "actual word of God and should be taken literally." That is a fundamentalist view. Broken down, then, roughly 15% of UMs take a fundamentalist view, roughly 15% take a view clearly outside of our doctrinal standards, and the remaining 70% have an understanding someplace in between.

3) There is remarkable agreement in many theological views. If you read the full report you'll see a series of theological statements that, with the exception of a belief in a literal hell, show a strong level of consistency. And also show no unanimity even among the three theological groupings.

One Church Plan - Impacts on Clergy

Getting the Facts Straight

As the Special Session of General Conference draws close, it is especially important for all delegates and interested United Methodists to gain as clear as possible a sense of the facts before us. There are and will continue to be legitimate differences of opinion and conflicting interpretations of implications of potential decisions, but there are also some realities we all ought to be able to agree upon. Tom Lambrecht of Good News recently posted comments about impacts on clergy that he perceives as possible from the One Church Plan (OCP). There are several misinterpretations that should be corrected.
 

Respect for Different Opinions

The One Church Plan makes more options for ministries and holy conversations possible. But it does not force people to engage in practices or conversations or even take votes, unless their faith communities want to do so. Tom Lambrecht rightly notes that the OCP gives clergy a freedom that they have not previously had to marry same-sex couples. He says, “The downside of this freedom is that local congregations would also gain the right to make decisions that until now have been made at the general church level.”
 

Impacts on Congregations

Certainly one of the most important benefits of the OCP is that it allows congregations to engage in holy conversations and make decisions that up to now have been suppressed or prohibited. Evidently, some fear having hard conversations in the local church about such matters. But no counselor would suggest that a family should categorically avoid such encounters. Certainly we don’t find Jesus avoiding hard conversations with his disciples. Nevertheless, if a congregation isn’t ready, doesn’t see the need, or chooses not to enter into discussions about same-sex marriage, under the OCP they have the complete right to make that choice. The OCP opens up more options about matters that affect the lives and faith of our people. It does not force conversations or votes.
 

No Need for Schism

The OCP takes great pains to honor the consciences of all people in these matters. In fact, the OCP explicitly protects individual conscience no matter what stance one assumes regarding same-gender relationships.

In his sermon “On Schism,” while acknowledging that there are specific situations when a person may need to leave a church, John Wesley speaks about this in a way that is entirely relevant to our current circumstances. “Suppose the Church or society to which I am now united does not require me to do anything which the Scripture forbids, or to omit anything which the Scripture enjoins, it is then my indispensable duty to continue therein” (On Schism, II.7. emphasis added).
 

Freedom to Choose

Tom Lambrecht asserts that “Many evangelical clergy by conscience could not continue to serve in a denomination that they believe has contradicted Scripture…” But there is nothing in the OCP that requires any layperson, clergyperson, local church, annual conference, jurisdiction, or central conference to take any action. Any anxiety generated by pastors who choose to leave the denomination is caused by their own decisions, not by the OCP. There is nothing in our Wesleyan heritage and teachings and nothing in the OCP that introduces new reasons for any clergyperson to relinquish their credentials.

Tom Lambrecht points out that under the Modified Traditional Plan (MTP), “For clergy who are willing to abide by the current requirements of the Book of Discipline, there would be little change.” And the truth is that there would be no change for those same clergy under the OCP. And yet, to the contrary, with the MTP any clergy whose consciences lead them to differ from unbending interpretations that are advocated for inclusion in the Book of Discipline could find no place within our communion. 
 

The One Church Plan Honors Conscience

We can all agree that, as Lambrecht says, “In some ways, clergy may have the most to lose if the General Conference is not able to find a constructive way for the church to move forward.” But by careful and prayerful work, and with the endorsement of nearly two-thirds of our bishops, we do have a way forward that makes room for all.

Let’s choose then to move forward, together. 

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.

Ten Years Later - The UMC in 2028, pt. 1

General Conference happens every four years - except when it doesn't. Because of this year's special session we will have four general conferences in 10 years - 2019, 2020, 2024, and 2028. What will the UMC look like as we prepare for that 2028 General Conference? It depends largely on what happens in St. Louis three weeks from now. But I can give you a preview.

I really do believe that I can give you a preview. I've talked with people on all sides of the divide and read every document I can get my hands on. Every piece that I share here (except one that I note below) has data, documents, and/or conversations to back it up. I'm trying deliberately not to exaggerate or insert my own biases - though of course some of both may accidentally be inserted.

There are four realistic outcomes. 1) The Modified Traditional Plan (MTP) could pass, the One Church Plan (OCP) could pass either 2) with or 3) without an exit plan, and 4) We could leave with no plan passing. There are other proposals as well, but none of those proposals is viable. In part 1 I'm covering the three options that I hope we don't approve. In part 2 I'll look at the One Church Plan without an exit path, which is my personal preferred option.

If the Modified Traditional Plan Passes

If you've read anything I've written you know that this is not what I want. But it is possible for it to pass. If it does pass it will be by a small margin.

• It won't take effect until after General Conference 2020. The Traditional Plan was "fixed" with the insertion of Maxie Dunnam's Modified plan and some other revisions that were just released. Language has already been crafted to challenge the constitutionality of some of the revised provisions. Only the original TP has been reviewed by the Judicial Council and some of the fixes are likely not to pass muster. They will have to be fixed again in 2020.
• Some traditionalist churches will leave right away. the MTP has an exit provision and traditionalist leadership is openly saying that passing an exit path is a higher priority than passing the MTP. Multiple churches have said that even if the MTP passes they are strongly considering leaving. the WCA is planning for an April convention to create a new structure for those churches that do choose to leave. The question here is not whether traditional churches will leave, but how many. I can't venture a guess there. As far as 15 years ago some traditionalists have wanted out of the denomination. This is their opportunity.
• Some centrist churches will leave a little while later. Those of us who consider ourselves theological centrists will be in a bind. The traditional plan is not in keeping with our big tent approach to ministry and theology. There is no centrist or progressive version of the WCA because we really truly mean it when we say that we should all be able to live together. But there will be some churches who can't do that with the traditional plan and they will leave. It will take some time to formulate the best way to do this.
• The people that traditionalists most want to exit won't. I promise. I've spoken with them. Their attitude is that they won't be kicked out of their church. Remember that the traditional plan adds an exit plan for this group even though they never asked for it. This means that the traditionalist claim that their plan will avoid trials and lawsuits is just plain wrong. It could be that in 10 years time all of these people will have been forced out but it will not happen without extensive lawsuits and great expense. It doesn't require a lot of very determined people to make this real.
• There will be appointive chaos. It's widely acknowledged that our clergy tend to be more progressive than our congregations. Clergy who find the traditionalist plan unpalatable will leave, many more than congregations, leaving us with a clergy shortage for the remaining churches. This is probably a short to mid term problem. Ten years out I expect that enough of our churches will have closed without pastoral leadership that the problem will be resolved.

If Nothing Passes

This is what the WCA has stated privately that they believe is most likely although they are working hard to get more votes - especially to get votes for the exit plan. 

• Mass exodus if an exit plan passes. If we get to the final day in St. Louis without any plan having a majority vote the traditionalist narrative will be that the denomination has failed. We will likely be reminded that Keith Boyette, the WCA's president, called for the denomination to be dissolved and we will be told that we should at least just pass an exit path so that those who want to leave the sinking ship can go. At that point it will be hard not to pass such a plan and any number of churches, both traditional and progressive, will choose over the next few years to leave.
• We get to do it all again one year later. This is the only part of this entire piece that is pure speculation. I think that if we reach a decision in 2019, no matter what that decision is, it will not be undone one year later at GC2020. But if nothing passes then we will get to have the exact same argument again. 

If the One Church Plan Passes AND an Exit Plan Passes

An exit plan is antithetical to the One Church Plan. From a process standpoint, I don't think it is possible for GC to add one to the OCP. But GC could pass the OCP and also pass an exit plan.

• Exodus of traditional churches. I wish it wouldn't happen, truly, but it would. Think of it like the stock market collapse at the Great Depression. The WCA and friends have been very successful in making this appear to be a crisis. Traditionalist churches and pastors won't want to deal with the crisis. If there is an easy escape path they will take it.
• But not as many as some think. Two-thirds of U.S. delegates will vote for the One Church Plan. Guaranteed. If this was a U.S. only vote something like the One Church Plan would likely have been approved eight years ago. People want to be able to live together with different perspectives - in fact, we do it every Sunday morning in almost all of our churches. There are also practical realities like smaller churches that will struggle to find a pastor outside of the denomination. In the Great Plains (Kansas and Nebraska) the number I've heard thrown around by traditionalists is 50. Out of 1,000 churches, that would be a 5% loss. That's a lot. Every sheep matters. But it is not the flood that fear-mongers suggest. 
• The denomination will move left theologically. With fewer on the conservative wing, inevitably there will be movement to the left. This will appear to be a fulfillment of traditionalist predictions but as you'll see below only because it is a self-fulfilling prophesy.
• Central Conferences will be in a tough spot. Enough churches will have left that maintaining support for central conferences will be difficult. At the same time, those central conferences who leave the denomination will be allied with a group that is U.S. focused and will also be smaller. Remember that African conferences already believe they need more bishops and don't have the funds to fully pay for those bishops. If we are struggling to meet that goal now how could it possibly happen with a divided church?