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?

The Bombshell You May Have Missed

There was a firestorm on social media yesterday when Mainstream UMC released a letter they obtained from the North Alabama Chapter of the WCA. The letter is real. It has been independently verified and there has been no denial that I'm aware of. Honestly, there is nothing in the letter that was surprising to read. It largely confirmed what many of us deeply involved in preparations for General Conference already knew. It's just disturbing to see it in print. Here are the major takeaways along with the important pieces that you may have missed. If you don't read all of this please skip to the last point. It's the single most important point the letter makes that you may have missed.

We already knew: The WCA is serious about leaving if they don't get their way. We already knew that if the One Church Plan (OCP) passed that the WCA would form a new denomination. That has been in writing before. The letter also says there is a 70% chance that they will leave "if the special General Conference adopts neither the One Church Plan nor the Modified Traditional Plan, or adopts a Traditional Plan with no enhanced accountability provisions." I'm told by people who would know that the 70% figure is speculation on the part of the author. This single statement is the only item in the entire letter that I've seen refuted.

You may have missed: The Judicial Council ruling in October stripped the Traditional Plan of most of the accountability mechanisms. The only fix that I'm aware of is given in this article by Tom Lambrecht. This fix has two major flaws that I'll try to attend to at another time (In short, it still may not be constitutional and it creates a major problem for Central Conferences). But the point for now is that even the Modified Traditional Plan needs new legislation that we haven't seen in order to add "enhanced accountability" that the North Alabama WCA says is essential for them to stay. Some argue that the OCP is not a compromise. At least the proponents of the OCP are willing to talk about it as a compromise. This letter shows just how firm the WCA is in their unwavering commitment to getting precisely what they want or leaving.



We already knew: the WCA knows that they don't have the votes to pass the Traditional Plan (TP). This has not been said out loud before, but virtually every article and blog we've seen published in the last month has reinforced this. Their focus has been on the problems with the OCP, selling us on the Connectional Conference Plan, and/or telling us how important an exit plan is. I don't think it is fair to say that the TP is dead on arrival, but it is on life support. The leadership knows this and has made it clear by where they are putting their energy.

You may have missed: This is why the "gracious exit" is so important for the WCA. Please remember that the Traditional Plan includes a gracious exit for progressives that 1) the progressives never asked for and 2) contains a giant loophole that lets the WCA leave also. Petition 10 for the Traditional Plan (#41 if you have the ADCA) says churches, etc. may leave if "it is in irreconcilable conflict...on issues of human sexuality, or with the way such requirements are being enforced..." Note that this is the same kind of language used in the North Alabama WCA letter. If the accountability that they are seeking is not in place (and by their own admission it probably will not be) then they will most likely exit. If the TP's exit provision is passed then they have exactly the exit plan that they need. This is important. If the first item we tackle at General Conference is an exit plan then the remainder of General Conference will include planning for a future that some of the delegates have no intent to be part of. 



We already knew: The WCA is well organized. They have an executive meeting already scheduled for the days immediately following General Conference and they have a tentative meeting planned the week after Easter to organize a new denomination. It makes sense to be prepared, and they have done this. We should have no animosity towards them for this.

You may have missed: The WCA is organized for an exit. Here's the key sentences: "We urge churches and pastors to participate in the convening conference if necessary and to take steps to withdraw in concert with one another. The WCA will be providing counsel throughout this period and will provide steps for churches and pastors to follow in transitioning from the UM Church to what is next if that is needed. A team of legal strategists will provide overall strategic advice." The WCA is preparing for a mass exodus, including having attorneys ready to go. The response to this is "Why wouldn't we be organized like this? Every group should be." I disagree. I have made no preparations in case I decide to divorce my wife. Because I'm committed to her. That's not what you do when you are committed to a person or an organization. In 2015 an elder in the Great Plains Conference surrendered his credentials at Annual Conference. It felt like a big deal. He brought his framed certificate with him just in case we voted the way he thought we would vote on a key issue so that he could make a big spectacle of surrendering his credentials. It was a charade. Nobody hires a divorce attorney if they are not planning on divorce. Nobody comes to Annual Conference with their credentials in hand unless they already plan to turn them in. Nobody lines up the attorneys and "legal strategists" to leave the denomination unless you plan to leave.

And the most critical piece that you may have missed: This is the real bombshell in the letter. This is the one part that surprised me and that is most disappointing. The exodus will happen no matter what we decide at General Conference. 

We already knew that there was at least one member of the WCA executive board who guided his church out of the denomination. The WCA never removed him or discouraged him. Now listen to this word for word quote from the letter: If the special General Conference adopts the Modified Traditional Plan with the enhanced accountability provisions, there still may be churches which are intent on departing from the United Methodist Church. The WCA will work with those churches to transition into a new Methodist movement. Those churches which indicate a desire to be part of something new will be invited to a convening conference. Other churches would be given the opportunity to move to what is new at a later time, if they decided that became advisable."

Even if we get precisely what we want, there will still be churches (like that of the person mentioned above) that choose to leave. "The WCA will work with those churches to transition into a new Methodist movement." and "Other churches would be given the opportunity to move to what is new at a later time..."

Friends, it does not get clearer than that. The radical right in the UMC is leaving. Period. Some say that the One Church Plan will lead to their departure. That is not true. They have already announced their departure. Some say adopting the Connectional Conference Plan will keep them in the fold. That is not true. They have already announced their departure. The question for the rest of the UMC, and for General Conference, is whether we should give the radical right permission to take others with them. I'm not inclined to do that.

The CCP Is (and should be) DOA

In the lead up to General Conference we've seen renewed interest in the Connectional Conference Plan (CCP). It should be noted that virtually every person who has written favorably of the CCP is publicly associated with the Wesleyan Covenant Association (WCA), Good News, or both. Every indication points to the Traditional Plan leadership understanding that they do not have the votes to pass their plan or the (largely identical) Modified Traditional Plan. Advocating for the CCP appears to be an attempt to siphon votes and momentum away from the One Church Plan (OCP). You shouldn't fall for it.

But first, an argument in favor of the CCP. I genuinely appreciate the Commission on a Way Forward spending time and energy on a creative plan that deliberately avoids any perception of winners and losers. At a different time I think I could have advocated for this plan. I appreciate that, like the OCP the CCP gives space for differences of opinion. I appreciate that it gives us more flexibility from an unfortunately large and burdensome Book of Discipline. Following, though, are some fatal flaws that make it Dead on Arrival at General Conference.

1. The CCP Simply Cannot Pass

On the day in 2016 when General Conference broke I'm convinced that nothing of  substance could get a majority vote. Time has passed and now I do think a majority could vote for the right plan. But the CCP has 8 constitutional amendments that require a super-majority. That's just not going to happen. But what if somehow it did? For the CCP to take effect it has to be approved not only by General Conference, but by a 2/3 aggregate vote of the annual conferences. Remember that in 2016-17 we couldn't get a 2/3 vote on women's rights. If we can't get 2/3 agreement on that it is unfathomable that we would get a 2/3 vote on all of the CCP amendment.

2. The CCP Has Not Been Fully Vetted

Last October the Judicial Council ruled on the constitutionality of both the OCP and the TP. Their rulings are one reason why the TP now is struggling so much. They did not, however, review the CCP. As mentioned above, the authors of the CCP have identified 8 constitutional amendments that are needed. There is no guarantee, however that those are the only amendments needed. It is very conceivable that if the CCP somehow got the requisite vote at General Conference the Judicial Council would then rule it is still unconstitutional. We've then completely wasted time and money and are back to drawing board in 2020.

3. The CCP Timeline Is Unworkable

 The published timeline for implementation of the CCP shows that it will not be fully implemented until 2025. We have two general conferences between now and then. We have six more years for voting patterns to shift and for culture to shift. The WCA has vowed to leave if anything other than the Traditional Plan passes. If they stay true to that then we could have a very different church in the next 6 years. At a time when most of us recognize that institutions need to be more nimble the CCP locks us into one mode for the next 6 years.

4. It Is the Separation Before the Divorce

This has been my chief complaint from the beginning. The thesis of the CCP is  that we have so many theological differences that the only way forward as one denomination is to separate ourselves into three mini-denominations segregated by theology. Note first that this is precisely the same way that American society has segregated itself politically. The result of our political segregation is political extremism and animosity towards those who we disagree with. The CCP institutionalizes echo chambers that we speak into at a time when we especially need to listen to those we disagree with. The echo chambers will simply reinforce what we already believe, reinforce our stereotypes, and ultimately drive us further away from each other. 

In his 2008 book Staying at the Table, Bishop Scott Jones wrote that "liberals need conservatives and conservatives need liberals." He's right. This is what the One Church Plan provides. The CCP isolates us from each other before an inevitable divorce. Don't let that happen. 

A Reasonable Look at Schism

Take a quick look at any United Methodist related social media and you will quickly find that everybody thinks that everybody they disagree with is in schism. It is asserted from the left that those who would leave the UMC if the One Church Plan are schismatic and from the right that the left is already in schism because of the election of Bishop Karen Oliveto. Both are right. And both are wrong.

Wesley's sermon On Schism is the source that we must turn to. It's noteworthy that Wesley begins by saying that churches in schism seem to always disagree about who is schismatic. We are replaying history that has itself been replayed multiple times. He goes on to make a clear case for a scriptural definition of schism from 1 Corinthians. He says, "Can anything be more plain than that the 'schisms' here spoken of were not separation from but divisions in the church of Corinth?" [language and emphases throughout are taken directly from The Works of John Wesley, volume 3.] The plain meaning of the text does seem to be clear. Go to 1 Corinthians 1:10 yourself and see what you think.

So let's pause. One could certainly make a case that in electing Bishop Oliveto to the episcopacy the Western Jurisdiction acted in a way that made our schism plain. We can almost hear two people arguing with one saying, "I'm with Bishop Oliveto!" and another saying, "I'm with Bishop Lowery!". That, Wesley says, is the Biblical definition of schism. But in this sermon Wesley does not cast blame on one group or the other. He notes the reality of the situation. To one degree or another both parties are to blame - both parties are in a relationship of schism with one another - because both parties have "an alienation…of affection toward their brethren."

This is the argument from the right. The liberals are in schism because they have violated the covenant of the Church while they are in the church. The point is valid. And the point could be reversed. I'm not sure an objective observer would see much affection flowing in either direction. That's one reason I appreciate Mainstream UMC's position that we want all people to be part of the denomination. We really do think a big tent church is good.

Now let's move on, because Wesley has one more critical point to make. The WCA and others would have you believe that this is the end of Wesley's sermon. It is not. He goes on to say that while most of Christianity has misunderstood schism, the popular conception of it (separation from a church) is still valid. "Schism, even in this sense, is both evil in itself, and productive of evil consequences." He goes on, "To separate ourselves from a body of living Christians with whom we were before united is a grievous breach of the law of love. … The pretences for separation may be innumerable, but want of love is always the real cause." Wesley then goes on for five paragraphs about all the evil that comes from church splits, including that it harms our evangelistic efforts.

But here's the kicker for those who defend the exodus that the WCA has proposed. Their argument for leaving if the One Church Plan passes amounts to, "we can't stay in a denomination with people who will practice so differently than us." Wesley acknowledges that there are times when a person may need to leave a body of believers. That time comes only if "...we could not continue without sin" or "I was not allowed to continue therein without breaking a commandment of God." He then uses his contemporary Church of England as an example. It's not entirely different from our situation. Wesley believed the Church had largely missed what God wanted them to do, yet he never separated from them. Why? Because as wrong as he thought the Church was on certain matters continuing in the Church never caused him to sin.

Listen: "...suppose the church or society to which I am now united does not require me to do anything which the Scriptures forbids, or to omit anything with the Scripture enjoins, it is then my indispensable duty to continue therein. And If I separate from it without any such necessity I am justly chargeable…with all the evils consequent upon that separation."

So here's what it boils down to. The One Church Plan very intentionally avoids forcing people to make decisions that they believe Scripture forbids. No Bishop must ordain, no pastor must marry, no conference must certify. In fact, the One Church Plan remains the only plan that does not force a split. It is the only plan that allows space for people to believe differently while holding us together. And in that sense it is the only plan that is not schismatic.

If Wesley was alive today would he favor same-sex marriage and LGBT ordination? I think he probably would not. But he would have a loyalty to the Church and such a high view of the Sanctity of the Church that I think he would approve of the One Church Plan as a reasonable path forward to hold us together for the sake of the mission of the Church.

Which Tent Do You Want to Live in?

Far-right traditionalists have long maintained that General Conference in February 2019 will not really be about human sexuality. It will be about something deeper. They are right.

A sample of what I mean:

- "This is not a new battle in the church. Every generation has had to confront the false gospel that would deny the Lordship of Jesus." - WCA President, Keith Boyette

- "The Fallacy of the Big Tent" - title of column by Good News Vice-President, Tom Lambrecht

- "The Judicial Council has defined connectionalism in a new way which will change the United Methodist Church. As now defined by the Judicial Council, connectionalism allows 'room for diversity of theological perspectives and opinions.'" - Boyette, after the October 2018 Judicial Council decision


These are the primary spokespeople of the far right in the UMC. Just look at what each of these quotes means:

- If you disagree with us on human sexuality then you are preaching a false gospel and deny the Lordship of Jesus. I've pointed previously to Lambrecht saying the same thing. He denied saying what he said because it's not politically correct. But just listen to the words. I hope we can all agree that denying the Lordship of Jesus is a pretty high offense. I don't want to be in the same denomination as one who denies the Lordship of Jesus or preaches a false gospel. That person is pretty much by definition not a Christian. This is why many people with traditional views on human sexuality will ultimately not want to be part of a WCA denomination. We are capable of recognizing that significant differences in theological opinion does not mean some are dismembered from the Body of Christ.

- "The Fallacy of the Big Tent" makes for a good title but poor theology. First, every tent has stakes in the ground that mark the boundaries. I, for one, appreciate those who remind us of the boundaries. But in his column Lambrecht criticizes "a 'big tent' enclosing many varied perspectives, opinions, and practices within one over-arching church." This should be contrasted with "if your heart is as my heart take my hand" and "in essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity." The choice before us is whether we will live in a big tent or a pup tent. The One Church Plan envisions a big tent that is bound together by our doctrinal standards. The Traditionalist Plan envisions a pup tent where we achieve unity by group-think.

- And as further proof of that statement, see Boyette's rebuttal to the Judicial Council. He criticizes their judgement that connectionalism "allows room for diversity of theological perspectives and opinions." I am not familiar with a Methodist church that does not allow room for diversity of theological perspectives. Which of our local churches does not allow room for diversity of theological perspectives? Which of our annual conferences? In  which era of Methodism did everybody agree?

The areas where we do have, or at least should have, agreement are our doctrinal standards. Those standards are silent on LGBT inclusion. A trumped up case was made to the Judicial Council that our doctrinal standards do speak to this because Wesley's Notes on the New Testament (which are officially part of our doctrine) refer once to marriage as between one man and one woman. I can't recall any other time in my ministry that someone has appealed to Wesley's notes, which are out of print by the way, as the sole basis for a doctrinal position. Wesley's notes also identify the Pope as the beast in Revelation (chapter 13, verse 1). So if those notes really are doctrinal standards that we all need to adhere to then we all need to be clear in our teaching on Revelation.

I believe the vast majority of United Methodists - even the vast majority who have signed on to be WCA members - do not envision pup tent Methodism.  We envision a big tent with lots of room. A Methodism that holds fast to essentials and allows diversity in non-essentials. That's what we're voting on in February. I'll be voting to keep you and me in the same tent.

What a Real "Gracious Exit" Might Look Like

Delegates to General Conference from the Great Plains are getting plenty of emails sharing opinions about the best path for the United Methodist Church. Those opinions are very diverse. I had a brief dialogue with one person whose email can be summarized as "please vote for the traditional plan, but if you can't do that at least give us the gracious exit." If only it were so simple.

Before sharing why I don't think it is so simple you should know that I told that person I would support that church's decision to leave the denomination if that's what they felt they needed to do. The starting point for any conversation about leaving a denomination should be the same as the starting point for an individual leaving a local church - nobody should be held hostage. That doesn't do anyone any good. It is completely conceivable and appropriate for churches (and individuals) to have the ability to leave. The question is how that is best done. What principles should be applied to a plan for a "gracious exit?" I suggest there are at least two.

1) A gracious exit may look different for one church than it does for another church. The church I serve is 35 years old. We are on the verge of paying off debt that was accumulated over those years. We are fairly well off financially and we have a good piece of land. We have always paid our apportionments and we have also received a number of grants and good leadership from the conference. My email dialogue partner didn't feel the same. Their church was over 100 years old. It is small and rural and the conference investment in more recent times has been minimal. It seems to me that if a 100+ year old small church with a part-time pastor wants to leave the denomination the financial cost should be minimal. The local church has undoubtedly given greatly to the connectional church. Perhaps an apt metaphor is the way we might care for an elderly parent - they have given of themselves already and we owe them a debt, not the other way around. Frankly, though, the church I serve is in a different position. We are more like the caregiver. Financially, we are now giving far more to the Conference than the Conference is giving to us. But we're only 35. We still owe our very existence to the greater United Methodist Church. I can't put a number on it, but I will say unequivocally that if we choose to leave the denomination we should be required to pay something in return for all the denomination has done for us. A real "gracious exit" must allow for conferences to treat local churches as individual churches instead of treating every church the same.

2) A gracious exit must happen at a time when both the local church and the conference can treat each other with grace. True story. I was talking with a husband who was considering divorce. Without question the marriage had been in trouble for a number of years. In this moment it was particularly fragile. They were about to become empty-nesters and an unexpected and unwelcome job change was coming that would require at least one spouse to relocate. My pastoral word to him: "I know that I don't make my best decisions when I'm in a time of really high anxiety. Maybe this isn't the right time for a life-altering decision. What would happen if you stick together for another year while you work through some of these changes?" The year hasn't elapsed yet - I don't know what the outcome will be. But I do know that if this couple divorces it will be less messy if they are able to do it at a time with less stress than they were experiencing in that moment. A real gracious exit must not be forced. It must allow space for the right action at the right time.

Is such a gracious exit possible? Yes. In fact we already have this kind of gracious exit. Our Book of Discipline already allows churches to leave the denomination. It allows conferences to treat these churches individually and it doesn't impose a time limit. If we can treat one another with grace then we can allow churches that need to leave our connection to exercise that option without any changes to the Book of Discipline.

What about the Traditional Plan's Exit?

The "gracious exit in the Traditional Plan (TP) violates both of the prerequisites above.

1) The TP's exit treats all churches the same. We have learned that one-size-fits-all just doesn't work anymore. It doesn't work for church growth, it doesn't work for pastoral leadership, it doesn't work for local church or annual conference organization. It won't work for an exit plan either.

2) The TP forces churches and annual conferences to make an exit decision at exactly the wrong time. The decision on leaving the denomination must be made in roughly 12 months. For annual conferences, it would almost certainly require a special conference session. We would actually make our best decisions if the clock were reversed - if we had to stick together for another 12 months before being able to leave the denomination. Many states have a mandatory waiting period for a divorce. Should we not have the same kind of standard for splitting the Body of Christ?

A More Gracious Plan

A more gracious exit plan might look like this:

First, have a process that is followed by every conference that allows for the possibility of different outcomes. For example, every church that is considering leaving should have a church conference rather than having only officers of the church make a decision. That's a process that every church can follow. A common process can ensure that all members who wish to remain United Methodist have a place to go.

Second, every conference (through district superintendents and boards of trustees) should work in partnership with the local church to determine equitable terms for closure. My guess is that in most cases payment from the local congregation to the conference will be minimal (outside of what has become a unanimous agreement that churches should contribute to future pension obligations).

Third, churches are not bound by time constraints. If a church determines two years from now that it needs to leave then that option is open. If a church decides one year from now that they need to leave that option is also open.

How Would We Implement a Gracious Plan

If this seems like a reasonable plan then I have good news. This is pretty much what the current Book of Discipline does. We know that this process works because there are churches today that are leaving the denomination instead of waiting until after General Conference. They are doing that now because the process actually works now.

In fact, ironically, the Traditional Plan incorporates an exit path allegedly  for progressive churches to leave that progressive churches have said they don't want. I don't believe I've heard from any pastor or lay member of a progressive congregation that they need an exit plan other than what we currently have. The only call I've heard for an exit plan is from traditionalists.

We should be fair. We need to be fair. We need to allow those who need to leave to do so. We don't need a new way of doing what we have already proven we can do right now. I appreciate that the One Church Plan focuses on how to help us stay together rather than forging new and unnecessary ways for us to separate.