The Last Word on the "Gracious Exit"

TLDR - skip to point 4 under "Some History." 

Much has been written about the adoption and implementation of paragraph 2553, the Book of Discipline (BOD) paragraph allowing for disaffiliation of local churches from the United Methodist Church (UMC). As I've shared before both privately and publicly, I believe every conference should allow churches to leave if they follow the minimum requirements of this paragraph. There may be some extraordinary circumstances that necessitate more requirements (the Florida Conference may be one of these), but those should be exceedingly rare. We've gone over the history of how 2553 was put in place before, but there is one more part of the conversation that has not been covered. This is especially important when we learn that some local Wesleyan Covenant Association (WCA) chapters are suing conferences like the Western North Carolina Conference, that are following the absolute minimum requirements.

Financial Terms

Recall that 2553 requires payment of three pieces:

1. "...any unpaid apportionments for the 12 months prior to disaffiliation...." These are apportionments that are already owed by every local church. It is literally requiring the church to pay what they are already required to pay, only it is now enforced.

2. "...as well as an additional 12 months of apportionments." This is a new amount since it is looking forward in time. 

3. "...its pro rata share of any aggregate unfunded pension obligations...." 

I don't recall anybody arguing against #1, only a small handful argue against # 3, and only a slightly larger handful argue against #2. When we hear people argue that even the minimum disaffiliation terms listed in paragraph 2553 are unfair, they typically point to one other clause: "Payment shall occur prior to the effective date of disaffiliation."

Some History

So how did that clause find its way into 2553? If you read my blog regularly you know some of the answer: A petition submitted by Texas' Leah Taylor (generally regarded as a centrist) proposed a form of disaffiliation, which you can read on page 205 here. Through a regularly used process called a minority report, traditionalists amended the Taylor petition and it passed without further change. Each amendment to the original was made for one of two purposes. Either the amendment was a fix for a constitutional issue raised by the Judicial Council, or it changed something traditionalists wanted that the original petition did not include. 

Here's the new history. What, specifically, was changed from Taylor's original proposal, and why?

1. Eliminate the "Initial Inquiry" process. Taylor included a study to determine whether a church was "viable" outside of the UMC. An unviable church could not disaffiliate. A reasonable argument could be made for either including or excluding this. Excluding it broadens the number of churches who could disaffiliate, including it helps assure that a church will survive rather than quickly close.

2. "Process Following Decision to Disaffiliate..." Taylor placed the responsibility for developing the disaffiliation process with the resident bishop. This fixes a constitutional issue and had to be changed.

3. Payment of grants. Taylor required repayment of all grants from an annual conference to a local church from the last five years. This was removed, making disaffiliation less expensive for some churches.

4. Payment Terms. This is the important one. It is also the most controversial. We've been told that the part of disaffiliation that is not gracious and is truly a burden is that all of these funds must be paid upfront. The traditionalists' amendment to 2553, which is now in effect, reads, "Payment shall occur prior to the effective date of departure." Here is the original from Leah Taylor in full: "The agreement shall specify the terms and conditions of the payment to the annual conference for any sums related to ¶ 2553.5. b, c, and e. The term of payment shall not exceed ten (10) years."

Conclusion

Traditionalists could have changed almost anything they wanted from the original disaffiliation plan. With that wide latitude they perfected their proposal for a plan that traditionalist presenter and WCA leader Rev. Beth Ann Cook called, "literally how I would want to be treated if I were the one hurting..." One of the changes fixed a constitutional problem. Two changes made it easier to disaffiliate. The final change moves from a very manageable 10-year financial arrangement to an upfront payment, which is the single biggest complaint traditionalists have about the entire disaffiliation process.

I can't say enough that I believe it is important for conferences to follow the minimum standards in 2553 and not add additional requirements. At the same time, I can't say enough that in every other conference, which is the majority, the problem of disaffiliation is one of traditionalist leaders' own making.