Way Forward Commission Drew Plans from Theological and Missional Frameworks

Way Forward Final Meeting

Members of the Commission on a Way Forward participate in a letting-go prayer at the end of their four-day meeting at El Segundo United Methodist Church in Los Angeles on Thursday, March 22. Photo by Maidstone Mulenga, Council of Bishops

The inadvertent release last week of the report and associated proposed legislation for General Conference 2019 from the Commission on a Way Forward has gotten a lot of attention. Most of this attention has been focused on the details of the three legislative proposals - the One Church, Connectional Conference, and Traditional Plans.

Yet also included in the Commission's report are two short documents worth reading on their own right: the Theological Framework and the Missional Framework developed by the Commission. These two pieces can be found on p. 7-10 of the Commission's report, which is p. 138-141 of the released PDF.

Gil Rendle, the consultant who facilitated the Commission's work, referred to these two pieces as "the two most important parts of the work [the Commission has] done," just not "the pressing issue." (You can see his remarks starting at 2:50 of this video of his overview of the Commission's work.) While none of the various legislative plans were endorsed by the Commission as a whole, these two theological pieces were affirmed by the entire Commission, further indicating their significance.

I have a personal interest in the reception of these pieces, as I had the honor of assisting the Commission in developing the Missional Framework. (Members of the Committee on Faith and Order consulted on the Theological Framework.) Yet beyond my personal involvement, I hope these two pieces can spark conversations about The United Methodist Church's theology and mission that go beyond the work of the Commission and the issue it was formed to address.

We in the UMC have a habit of taking all conversations and turning them into conversations about sex. It is my prayer that we will be able to do the reverse as well – take a conversation about sex and turn it into a conversation about something else – theology and mission.

UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott serves as director of mission theology for the United Methodist General Board of Global Ministries. The opinions expressed here are his own and in no way reflect official policies of Global Ministries. This post is republished with permission from UM & Global, the collaborative blog of United Methodist Professors of Mission.

Comments (5)

Comment Feed

And how did they draw from a theological framework

When the theological framework was affirmed at the end? I agree that we need to "talk theology" rather than sex. I wish theology had been the focus of the Way Forward Commission because the lack of a consistent theology is our problem!

betsy more than 5 years ago

That's what I was thinking

I agree sex isn't the problem, it's merely a result of complete confusion. The problem is no one can agree on theology. I have many UMC pastors in my family, two of whom cannot even step into a UMC church any longer. The theology is so wishy-washy. One of the many reasons the UMC is losing people is because of inconsistent theology, not sex. They Pastors and Bishops have no idea what they believe anymore.

Sarah more than 5 years ago

Aspirational statements with no binding effect

I have taken the time to read both the theological and missional frameworks. While uplifting and aspirational, what do either really add to the legislative frameworks which will be voted on by the General Conference in February? The theologicial framework suggests unity is of overwhelming value as opposed to adherence to one's conscience over the meaning of scripture. Those "Uniting Methodists" and other supporters of "One Church" plan (a misnomer if ever there was one) can make a very strong argument that the UMC as currently designated does some very fine mission work and offers much needed aid to those in crisis due to natural disasters or other causes, but is that enough for folks on either end of the theological divide to abandon their strongly held principles based on their understanding of Scripture? If the denomination does divide into two separate Weselyan movements, one supported by "Progressives" and one supported by "Traditionalists," why should we be worried that those two movements/denominations will quit supporting mission work and aid to those in need? If UMCOR gives $500,000.00 in aid to a crisis torn area, why should we not assume a "Progressive" Wesleyan Movement won't give $250,000.00 to those same folks and a "Traditionalist" Wesleyan Movement give $250,000.00 to those same folks? This is about power within the administration of the Denomination pure and simple.

John more than 5 years ago

Bishops' February 2018 meeting

If I'm interpreting the documentation correctly (and I'll concede I may not be), it would appear the COB at its February 2018 meeting abandoned or at the very least wanted to soft-pedal the idea of a "gracious exit" for those congregations or conferences whose consciences may not be able to support either the "One Church Plan" or the "Connectional Conference Plan." The proposed "Traditional Plan" as I understand it, does include such an exit plan for those whose consciences cannot support the currently language in our BOD. I see the resort to litigation and and a desperate attempt at hardball as the probable result of the COB's decision at its February meeting to try to steer the General Conference away from such considerations next February. Again, this seems more about maintaining power rather than "doing no harm."

John more than 5 years ago

Louisville MS FUMC

Is there anyone who can update readers of this site on the current status of the litigation between Louisville Ms. FUMC and the Mississippi Annual Conference? Last I heard, a judge had issued a Temporary Restraining Order on the Conference and a hearing on a preliminary injunction against the Conference was to be held in early June. The website for the Mississippi Conference has gone dark on the issue. This might provide us with a good example of what we might expect if all the plans being considered by General Conference in 2019 do not contain a gracious exit plan for the those Congregations whose consciences compel them to leave the denomination depending on the outcome of the vote in February.

John more than 5 years ago