Buyer Beware: The GMC Book of Doctrines and Discipline, Pt. 3: Bishops and Appointments

 We have spent years, probably decades, in the UMC talking about our method of clergy deployment. We've also gone back and forth on the power of bishops. Nearly everyone across the theological spectrum agrees that some changes are needed, although we disagree about what some of those changes are.

In this post, I will address some of the changes that are made in the GMC's Book of Doctrines and Discipline (BDD). Like the rest of this series, this is not intended to be comprehensive. I'm focusing on changes (or in a few places an anticipated change) that are likely unexpected. For example, the GMC puts a term limit on bishops. If you have been following UMC politics you probably already know that, so I'm not going to spend time on it. The six items below, though, surprised me and might also surprise you. As before, I'm listing these in order of the current paragraph number in the BDD. The first two relate directly to appointments. The others are more about the powers that bishops have.

Bishops and Appointments

1. Appointment Process: I remember seeing a pastor write that he would like to leave for the GMC solely because he would prefer a call system over the appointment system. Don't do that. You will be disappointed. My memory is that the initial draft of a new appointment process from the Wesleyan Covenant Association (WCA) included a hybrid call/appointment system. I don't remember the details and I can't locate the source. It seems like the church was able to "interview" a few candidates that were selected by the bishop with a requirement that at least one candidate be a woman or BIPOC. There was significant backlash from some with the traditionalist leadership and, for the sake of maintaining unity, that form of clergy deployment was abandoned. The new form of deployment, found in paragraph 509, is essentially identical to the old system. The bishop appoints; Staff Parish Relations Committee (SPRC) is consulted. This is stated explicitly in 345.8.i (the responsibilities of SPRC), 509.2 ("...clergy shall be appointed by the bishop, who is empowered to make and fix all apointments..."), and 510. 510 contains the only true change. If a church doesn't like the change being made, they can voice their concern and the bishop must respond. If you believe critics of our current system, bishops are already good at coming up with excuses for appointments (see the Mt. Bethel situation). If you are leaving the UMC because you don't like how appointments are made, you need to reconsider.

2. Unilateral Pastoral Change: In a pinch, bishops can act even without consultation. The BDD puts a great deal of effort into making sure everyone is theologically on the same page. That makes sense - it's part of their reason for existence. In that spirit, paragraph 354 provides a mechanism for removing a congregation from the denomination (we'll come back to this in the sixth and final post). It also provides a mechanism for removing a pastor. 3554.1 begins, "If the current pastor of the congregation is promoting doctrines or practices contrary to those of the Global Methodist Church, the bishop shall remove the pastor and appoint a pastor who will..." Similarly, to how a local church can remove a member with no recourse for the member, this appears to be an unlimited power. Bishop Scott Jones has contended that any teaching of a church is doctrine. Certainly anything in the BDD could be considered a "practice." Theoretically, a pastor who doesn't put the right number of people on a committee could be removed. Combined with the removal of guaranteed appointments, there is, as best as I can tell, literally nothing a pastor OR local church can do in this situation.

3. Ordination Authority: In the UMC, we have a system of checks and balances. Ordination, for example, is conferred by the bishop upon vote of the Board of Ordained Ministry and the clergy session. This raises a question: Could the Board and clergy approve someone who the bishop has to ordain whom the bishop believes is not qualified for ministry (say, in a conference with a traditionalist bishop and more progressive clergy)? Currently, the answer seems to be yes. That person would then, of course, be chargeable and we have a process for that which may or may not be followed. None of that happens in the BDD. Paragraphs 409.2 (for deacons) and 410.1.d (for elders) dictate that ordinands must be approved by the Board, the clergy, AND the bishop. Effectively, the bishop has a veto on the Board and clergy decisions regarding ordination regardless of their reason. Again, I don't see a recourse for the candidate.

4. Removing a Pastor (the hard way): On one hand, removing a pastor is extraordinarily easy now (there's still one more point on this to come). On the other hand, if a bishop (or others) want a pastor removed in the traditional United Methodist way (involuntary leave of absence), it's exceedingly difficult. Paragraph 415.4 requires that it be requested by the bishop and a supermajority of the cabinet, Board of Ordained Ministry, and clergy session must all agree. If I were a bishop and wanted a pastor gone I would never utilize this paragraph which, incidentally, is the only process for removal other than filing charges that contains an appeal process for the pastor.

5. Another Easy Way: By far the easiest way to remove a pastor with no repercussions for the bishop is to simply not appoint them. Paragraph 512 gives them this power. The bishop has to share a rationale (again, this is allegedly a very simple thing for a bishop to do today) and the pastor is no longer under appointment. By the way, this action also takes away their voting right as Annual Conference, which just feels punitive to me. Again, it's important to note that while the bishop must provide a rationale for not appointing a pastor, there is no apparent recourse for the pastor if this decision is made. 

I want to take another moment with this before moving on to the last power play a bishop can make. In this system, a bishop can veto the BOM and clergy's decision to ordain a person. Failing that, the bishop can simply choose not to appoint a person. Failing that, a bishop can change their appointment at will (like the current system). Failing that, the bishop can unilaterally remove a pastor from their appointment. There are four separate ways that a bishop can prevent a person from serving a church without the pastor having any recourse.

6. Stacking the Deck: Finally, we come to the bishop's power in the organization of the Annual Conference. Paragraph 613 lists six mandatory organizational components. I will add a seventh significant one that isn't mentioned there for this final concern. 1) The Board of Ordained Ministry - which the bishop nominated; 2) the Episcopacy Committee; 3) The Finance Committee; 4) the Leadership Committee (a new name for Nominating Committee), which the bishop both nominates and chairs and which all presiding elders (District Superintendents) are members; 5) the Committee on Investigation, which is nominated by the bishop, 6) the Administrative Review Committee, which is nominated by the bishop, and 7) the Cabinet, which of course is made up of people appointed by the bishop. Five of these seven structures are nominated or appointed directly by the bishop. The other two are nominated by a group that was itself nominated by and chaired by the bishop. Yes, the Annual Conference must approve these nominations. The next time an Annual Conference session rejects a bishop's nominations will be the first, and even if that did happen the bishop could simply nominate another person.

In summary, for an organization that doesn't trust the bishops, bishops have an extraordinary amount of power in the proposed GMC.

Next up: six concerns about the GMC's judicial process.

Buyer Beware: The GMC Book of Doctrines and Disciplines, Pt. 2: Power

 The GMC's, Book of Doctrines and Disciplines (BDD) is the best source we have for what the new denomination will really practice. In Part 1 of this series, I noted five things that I appreciated about the book. Now we start to dig in a little deeper.

One of the refrains that I hear on the traditionalist side of our current divide is that we have power problems. Centrists are actually "institutionalists" and part of that means keeping power structures the way that they are. We need a decentralized system for the 21st century.

I think it's a fair criticism, and one that the UMC will need to address in significant ways in the future. I'm not sure the GMC really addresses this, though. You will see this in future posts about bishops and money. In this post, I want to address some issues of power unrelated to these topics. In this and all future posts, paragraph numbers will refer to the October revision of the Book of Doctrines and Disciplines, which you can find at the link above.

 

Power

1. The Transitional Leadership Council (TLC): Before we get to specific paragraphs, I want to address an overriding, repeated concern. To be fair, starting a new denomination is a big idea requiring a herculean effort from a few people and lots of other effort from lots of other people. I don't know how I would do it. I do know that as you read throughout the BDD the Transitional Leadership Council shows up all over the place. This group of 18 mostly U.S. clergy (it can expand later) has almost unilateral authority to change anything that they want to change between now and the first General Conference (or equivalent) of the GMC. Even after the organizing conference this group will retain a great deal of power (more on this later). The BDD is effectively their document and if you choose to join the GMC prior to their organizing conference you are joining on their terms. Again, I don't know if there is a different way to do this. The series is titled "Buyer Beware," not "Don't Buy It." Just go in with your eyes wide open.

2. Removal of Membership: Traditionalists have been very clear that we need to take our beliefs seriously. Paragraph 322 lives that out in an extreme way. After charging each congregation to "establish and communicate clear expectations of their members," 322.3 says, "Negligent members may be placed on an inactive roll by a two-thirds vote of the church council." After two years on the inactive roll, during which the person can hold no office and have no vote, they can be removed entirely from membership. There is also a process for removing a member due to a chargeable offense. That process, like the UMC, includes a hearing and a right to appeal. This is not that. As best as I can tell, the decision of a local church regarding someone's membership is final. A local church can choose to simply kick a member out.

3. Hierarchical Clergy: We have issues with this in the UMC, too. Officially there is no hierarchy, at least not between elders and deacons (one could argue either way on local pastors). Unofficially, elders and deacons are often treated differently. In paragraph 403, the GMC returns to a two-stage ordination (pre-1996 in the UMC). This means a person is first ordained deacon. Some will choose to stay as permanent deacons. Others will choose to move on to ordination as an elder. There is no distinction between a permanent deacon with decades of experience and what in UMC terminology would be a provisional elder with one year of experience.

4.  Power over Education: This is probably the strangest piece you'll see in this whole series. Paragraph 407.b details the educational requirements for deacons after ordination. Since ordination happens sooner, it's reasonable that some additional course work would be required. But you don't get free reign to choose your work. After listing the kinds of courses that are acceptable (all of which are very reasonable), we learn "[The courses the deacon chooses] will be determined in consultation with the presiding elder (district superintendent) in consideration of the deacon's ministry setting." A deacon, either permanent or still in process, does not have the freedom to choose their courses.

5. Denominational Merger: I've already shared that I understand starting a new denomination requires some unusual powers. This one seems extreme. In paragraph 522.2, the TLC appoints a special commission of nine people for the purpose of recommending if other denominations should be able to join/merge with the GMC. 522.2b then gives sole authority to the TLC to determine "a plan of union to be effective immediately or to recommend such a plan of union to be approved at the convening General Conference." It does stipulate that the merging denomination must agree with the doctrinal and moral principles of the GMC. With that exception, this paragraph gives the TLC authority to approve any merger with any terms at any time before the convening conference takes place.

6. Diminishing Laity: The UMC has numerous requirements for proportional representation. Honestly, I think we probably have more than we need. The GMC has fewer. Some will like that and some won't. One board in particular caught my eye. Currently, laity must represent between 20% and 33% of the membership of the Board of Ordained Ministry. The BDD eliminates the minimum threshold. Members are nominated by the bishop. A bishop could choose to nominate as few as zero laity to serve on the board. Individual bishops actually have significantly more practical power in the GMC than in the UMC. We'll get to all of that in the next post in this series. I put this one here to focus on the diminishment of the power of laity. 

7. Transition over Time: Part seven of the BDD is about the connectional structure, beginning with the TLC. Again, this small group has unfettered power until the first convening conference. For all practical purposes, this is their document and they can change the rules whenever they want to. Paragraph 703 says they are, "empowered to make all necessary decisions related to the forming and initial operating of the Global Methodist Church until the effective date of legislation adopted by the convening General Conference. 703.2.o gives the TLC the power to decide when that convening conference will take place. Please hear me: I don't know if there is a different way of doing this. Somebody has to do the work. It seems important that this is acknowledged. Having said that, their power will continue indefinitely even after the convening conference. Paragraph 702 implies that their work will be transitioned over time to new connectional structures. 

8. Bureaucracy Is Coming: Probably not massive bureaucracy. That would be inconsistent with the stated goals of the leadership and there won't be enough funds (at least at first) to maintain it. But remember that an organization only grows over time, just like our current BOD has grown. Paragraph 705 gives a pretty lean transitional structure that, presumably, will continue intact after the convening conference. The last subpoint is the key one. "Transitional commissions may also be formed in other areas not named above..." There is no inherent limit to the size the organization can reach. 

I think half of these eight concerns could be easily remedied and maybe even will be by the end of the convening conference. For example, the inability of a member to appeal their membership being revoked could simply be an oversight (or I may have just missed something). The other half are, I think, just the way it is for now. The next post, on bishops and appointments, is different. I'm pretty confident that everything you will read there is exactly as intended. And it's not all as originally advertised.

Buyer Beware: What the GMC Book of Doctrines and Discipline Really Says, Pt.1

There's a common complaint in Congress that bills are voted on before anyone has a chance to read them. We have all had a chance to read the Transitional Book of Doctrine and Discipline (BDD). It has been available online for several months and modified a handful of times. Although it is available, my hunch is it hasn't been read by many. I get it - it's a big, boring document. Just like the Book of Discipline. But if you are considering joining the new GMC it would be good to see what the foundational document really says. 

This series of posts are intended to share with you some of what is in the BDD that you may not realize is there. It is not intended to be mean-spirited. In fact, I hope that some of what I found will be modified by the GMC, either before or during their first General Conference (or equivalent). You may find some of what I point out to be features of the new denomination, not bugs. I just want you to go in, if you choose to do so, with open eyes. There are many misrepresentations and misinterpretations of what the book really says. So, with that, here's the plan:

Pt 1 The Good

Pt 2 Power 

Pt 3 Bishops

Pt 4 Judicial Process

Pt 5 Social Concerns and Issues of Inclusion and Representation

Pt 6 Theology and Sacraments

Pt 7 Apportionments and Money

The Good Stuff

1. Scripture References: As a denomination that is basing its existence on the idea that they hold Scripture in higher regard than the rest of us, one would hope the BDD would reflect this by referencing Scripture. It does. It isn't completely consistent in this (and I don't think God has spoken on issues like how many people should serve on a committee) and there is, in my opinion, some occasional proof texting, but on the whole I appreciate that there is appropriate Scriptural justification for various positions. We have this in the current Book of Discipline (BOD) as well, but not quite like the BDD does.

2. Organizational Freedom: Recently our office manager found a church newsletter from the week following the Uniting Conference of 1968. Among the listed ways that the new denomination would impact local churches: organizational freedom within the local church. I mention that only to note that we've been working on this one for a while. There is far more freedom now than there was in 1968 or 1998. the BDD gives a little more, and I think that's mostly a good thing.

3. General Conference Petitions: This is almost entirely inconsequential, but it still stuck out to me. A petition to General Conference through "unofficial" channels must have 10 signatures of members instead of only 1. There are so many odd petitions that general conference has to deal with. This would help a little with that. And, honestly, if you can't get nine friends to sign on to your petition it's pretty clear that it doesn't need to be discussed.

4. One aspect of inclusion: If you've read anything I've written you already know that I am very much on the side of LGBT+ inclusion. As you'll see in the future, that gets even worse in the GMC. But I do appreciate one piece of inclusion. The BDD specifies "tribal" inclusion. In the U.S. this is unnecessary. In some other parts of the world, this is a critical issue that should not be ignored. I may have overlooked it, but I don't remember seeing anything of this clarity in the current BOD.

5. Size: The BDD is substantially shorter than the current BOD. I would love to have a very short BOD and a somewhat larger "Book of good ideas" that are not mandated but strongly encouraged. It's nearly impossible to cut things out of the current book, so the GMC is appropriately taking advantage of this moment to cut out a great deal of material. Having said that, I think it's important to note that books like this tend to grow over time. The BDD will never be shorter than it is the day it is officially adopted. So this is also my first "Buyer Beware" moment. Remember when comparing the BDD to the current BOD that both documents will change over time. The BOD will actually change first. Some of the ideas that we find in the BDD will likely find their way into the UMC's organization and structure. So every comparison of the two, including this one, cannot help but be a little bit of apples and oranges. 

Next Up: One of the complaints we hear a lot is the power that groups within the UMC have. General Boards and Agencies, Bishops, and people with the purse strings allegedly control denominational decisions. The GMC is supposed to fix this. I think, at least in the short term, it may make the power dynamics worse.

A New Call to Grace

 In December, 2019 a group of prominent United Methodists took an important step forward in helping us resolve our longstanding frustrations by drafting the Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace through Separation. My personal position on it remains unchanged since that time - it is very flawed but still, in conjunction with the Christmas Covenant, it is the best bad option we have. If General Conference happens in 2022 and if the Protocol is not amended I will vote for it. The likely alternative is lawsuits that would cost tens of millions of dollars and a horrible witness to the public.

BUT

Covid continues to make holding an international gathering unlikely. As I've previously written, a virtual or "distributed" General Conference is not allowed by our admittedly outdated rules. If General Conference does meet, there is no guarantee that the Protocol will pass. My guess is if we voted today it would pass, but it does not have quite the support in the U.S. that it once had. Also, as I clearly stated above, my vote is contingent on there being no amendments and passage of the Christmas Covenant. Even one amendment throws the balance the Protocol achieved out of whack and will almost certainly make passage of the full set of petitions more difficult. 

So what if we get to the fall of 2022 and one of these two scenarios plays out? There is no Plan B. The Global Methodist Church has assured us that they will being leaving the denomination in the fall of 2022 regardless of what happens at General Conference. But without an organized way of exiting the denomination the worst-case scenario of lawsuits seems inevitable. We already have one in the North Georgia Conference. There's the additional possibility that the GMC will fail to launch - Wespath has latitude in determining whether or not it is a viable denomination.

We need a Plan B. We can't afford not to have one. The Call to Grace statement released yesterday is, in my view, a good plan B. In the hours before it was publicly released, more than 100 prominent United Methodists signed on to the statement. At this writing, close to 1,000 have signed on including people from every jurisdiction in the U.S. and every continent with United Methodists. 

The Call is very simple: Let churches leave now, using language that is already provided for in the Book of Discipline. In fact, they can use the very same language that traditionalists passed in 2019 while calling it "the way [we] would want to be treated if [we] were leaving." When I spoke in support of the petition in the closing moments of General Conference 2019 I said, "It's your exit plan. You're welcome to take it." I believe bishops and conferences can creatively work with traditionalist churches and pastors to make it even a little easier to leave. 

The only part of this Plan B that is awkward is the timing. Normally you take the second option only after the first option is no longer viable. The problem we face is that the risks are too high. The nightmare scenario of lawsuits is too likely. We have proven over the last 50 years that we are unable to pass legislation at General Conference that will end this conflict. It would be far better for us to split as amicably as possible and as soon as possible than to risk the disaster that will come this fall. It's time for a different plan. It's time for a new call to Grace. I hope you'll consider signing on.

Why I'll #BeUMC Part 6 - The Quadrilateral

 I'm going to do a series of posts later on what I've discovered by reading through the breakaway group's Transitional Doctrine and Discipline. There are, I think, several items that you may have missed. One that did not surprise me - there is no mention of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. Why? Bad bathwater. It's been misused and misunderstood from time to time. But it's a beautiful baby that needs to be preserved. Throw out the bathwater, but keep the baby.

Reason #6 I'll still #BeUMC - The Wesleyan Quadrilateral remains an important way to understand and ultimately to put our faith in action.

Many traditionalists have argued that our fracture today is not really about human sexuality, but about the authority of Scripture. This is not the case. Yes, there are a handful of United Methodists on the far left that will deny the authority of Scripture, just as there are a handful on the far right who have made the Bible a god. Traditionalist leadership continues to exploit this small minority to make it sound like, as Rob Renfroe said recently, "People who have any kind of orthodox faith will not be able to remain in the post-separation UMC." 

The Quadrilateral Is not a Square

In short, the Quadrilateral is the concept that Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience (or Christian Experience) are all factors in how we make our faith decisions. You might see this graphically as a square. Some people will then say that, as in a square, all sides are equal and each of these four factors should be equally considered. But quadrilaterals aren't always squares. 

The Quadrilateral is best understood with Scripture as the base, interpreted through the lenses of reason, tradition, and experience. So, for example, we would never say, "The Bible says women shouldn't preach but tradition, reason, and experience outvote it three-to-one." Instead, we might say, "The Bible says women shouldn't preach. Experience and tradition suggest we should take a closer look than just the surface. Reason helps us see what the context was in that moment and, when looking at other passages, we come to a new interpretation of scripture that allows us to discern God wants women to preach."

Scripture is primary. It is authoritative. And we also use God-given resources to understand what Scripture says. This should not be controversial. In fact, at a join conference for churches over 400 in average attendance and pastors under age 40, when asked, "What do I value most about the UMC?" the third most common response was, "Theology shaped by Scripture interpreted with the aid of tradition, experience, and reason." It rated even above, "A wide welcome for all people." But, on the altar of doctrinal purity, the breakaway group has entirely removed the Quadrilateral. Instead of removing this helpful metaphor from use, we should reaffirm it and help people use it appropriately.

I want to be part of a church that lets people think. I don't want to be part of a church that frowns on, if not outright bans, people from using God's gifts of reason, tradition, and experience.

P.S. At that same conference mentioned above, a conference intentionally geared towards those who plan to remain or are open to remaining in the UMC, 94% of those present identified as "compatibilist," meaning that they are willing to be in a denomination with people who disagree about human sexuality. No pastor will be forced to marry people they don't want to marry. That's part of the definition of "compatible."

Why I'll Still #BeUMC Part 5 - Scripture

 The Wesleyan Covenant Association, which is the backbone for the group leaving the UMC next year, formed five years ago. Remember this is the group that allegedly is much more serious about Scripture than progressives and centrists. The group formed with a big splash - website, articles, speeches, and a fatally flawed statement on...scripture.

Here was the original statement:

“The Bible itself is the sole and final source of all that we believe. It is the inspired and infallible Word of God that speaks with final authority concerning truth, morality, and the proper conduct of humanity.” 

It was scrubbed from the website in a matter of days and replaced with a different, much better statement. You can read my take on the change here. Neither the original or revised statement appears in the current draft of their new Discipline, but I maintain that the first version is the truest version - the Freudian Slip of the WCA that tells us what they believe. And it's not Methodist.

Reason #3 to #BeUMC - a Methodist understanding of Scripture

The original statement is fundamentalism. It is not what we have historically believed. It does, though, give an important clue to what the group leaving us actually believes. 

David Watson, who is heavily involved with the WCA and others, has a great article on what we actually believe that I encourage you to read. In a nutshell, our current statements on Scripture are sufficient. I absolutely love the former EUB statement: 

We believe the Holy Bible, Old and New Testaments, reveals the Word of God so far as it is necessary for our salvation. It is to be received through the Holy Spirit as the true rule and guide for faith and practice. Whatever is not revealed in or established by the Holy Scriptures is not to be made an article of faith nor is it to be taught as essential to salvation.

Among the key differences, our current statement

- Limits Scripture to what its actual purpose is - revelation of God for our salvation, not for example, for science or history
- Identifies Jesus as the Word of God, so that we don't commit bibliolatry. 
- Notes the role of the Holy Spirit in understanding
- Allow for differences in theology 

If the issue at hand is that progressives and centrists don't believe in Scripture appropriately, why not simply say, "We believe and will practice what Methodists have traditionally believed and practiced regarding Scripture, as contained in our Articles of Religion and Confession of Faith."? 

Only time will tell how the breakaway group ultimately treats Scripture. In the meantime, I'm grateful to be in a denomination that has a nuanced, faithful, and historically Methodist view of Scripture.

Why I'll Still #BeUMC #4 - The Big Tent Still Matters

 We all know why we are here. 

We have argued about abortion, government provided health care, the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, the trust clause, the mission and purpose of the Church, environmentalism, I could literally go on all day. Every social issue and nearly every theological issue have been raised at General Conference and certainly in congregations around the world. And yet, organizationally, the story of the Methodist movement over the last 50+ years has been about uniting denominations, not dividing. 

Traditionalists will say this division is about the authority of scripture. They are wrong at best and lying at worst. We have disagreed about the interpretation of scripture for decades, too. None of these issues or conversations have caused a split. The split is simply because of one thing: LGBT+ people want to be fully accepted.* Maybe that's enough of a reason for the split, but we should at least be honest about it. 

Having said that, the group that is now leaving the denomination will differ from the UMC in a lot of ways besides just their exclusion. As evidence, you need go no further than ❡101 of the current draft of their Book of Doctrines and Discipline with the use of the word canon. There is a parenthetical - "the Greek word kanon means rule." It is true. It is also entirely unnecessary for the points being made in this section of the document. But the inclusion of this ancient definition is important - this group is focused on rules. It's not that rules are unimportant. Rules matter. One can think of the old metaphor of a tent - every tent has stakes that hold down the edges of the tent. If you go outside of the edges of the tent then you are no longer in the tent. 

Reason #4 I'll still #BeUMC - the Big Tent still matters.

I don't love the language, but the metaphor still works. The new denomination's tentative Discipline is heavy on just that - discipline. Everyone is welcome, as long as you think like us. That's not a denomination I want to be part of.

The church I serve now is a beautiful shade of purple. We can disagree on any number of topics and still worship together on Sundays. When I was on the Board of Ordained Ministry, I regularly voted for commissioning or ordination of candidates who were more conservative and more liberal than me theologically. Their theology was different than mine, but it was still Methodist. We do not all need to think alike. In fact, we are healthier when we have a degree of diversity. 

The Tent is not all-encompassing. There will be limits - again, on both sides of the theological spectrum. The tent may end up a little bigger or a litter smaller than I would personally prefer. But, at the end of the day, I don't want to be part of an intentionally Small Tent denomination that is defined by who they choose to exclude. I would much rather be part of a Big Tent defined by who we include. I don't want to be in a church defined by "Rule." I want to be part of a church defined primarily by Grace.

*I haven't finished reading the full text of the transitional Book of Doctrines and Disciplines. My favorite part so far is the paragraph on inclusiveness. First, note that we aren't splitting because inclusiveness is a priority either. They use the word! And they use it broadly! It's a good paragraph - except they don't mean really mean it. "Therefore, inclusiveness denies every semblance of discrimination on the basis of...[large list], or gender (defined throughout...by a person's immutable biological traits identified by or before birth.)" Literally, we won't discriminate against you unless you are LGBT+. Similarly, "Inclusiveness means the freedom for the total involvement of all persons who meet the requirements of our Book of Doctrines and Discipline in the membership and leadership of the Church at any level and in every place." Taken literally, this means people who are LGBT+ are not only banned from ordination, but from membership and leadership. That's an interesting definition of inclusion.